PDA

View Full Version : Why are idiots complaining about a MLB salary cap?



PitBillSoxFan
11-23-2010, 12:29 PM
People wanna cry about out of control salaries? The World Series was between the 10th and 27th highest payrolls in MLB while 3 of the top 5 payroll teams didn't even make the playoffs.

brb crying about the Yankees leading the world in salary and "buying a world series" and forgetting they've won 1 world series the last decade

kclulz88
11-23-2010, 12:32 PM
Baseball would be so much better if it had the parity that the NFL has. To do that, instill a salary cap.

_Translucency
11-23-2010, 12:35 PM
Baseball would be so much better if it had the parity that the NFL has. To do that, instill a salary cap.

It does. Even without one.


I always find it's the fans in the markets with low payrolls and horrible teams that call for a salary cap. The Royals would still be bad with a salary cap.

And this year was evidence that the system is fine.

PitBillSoxFan
11-23-2010, 12:37 PM
Baseball would be so much better if it had the parity that the NFL has. To do that, instill a salary cap.

The 27th highest payroll made the WS. Three of the top 5 did not. The NL has seen the Cardinals, Phillies, Giants, Rockies, etc make and win World Series recently. The AL has seen the Rays, Yankees, Sox, Rangers etc make and win the WS. How is this not parity exactly?

leafs43
11-23-2010, 12:39 PM
Some of the highest payrolls in MLB have terrible teams.

But that isn't the problem. The problem is small market teams can not afford to farm up talent and keep it over long periods of time. As soon as a player in a small market hits .300, 40 home runs, 90 rbis he will go to a team that will quadruple his salary.

kclulz88
11-23-2010, 12:44 PM
Some of the highest payrolls in MLB have terrible teams.

But that isn't the problem. The problem is small market teams can not afford to farm up talent and keep it over long periods of time. As soon as a player in a small market hits .300, 40 home runs, 90 rbis he will go to a team that will quadruple his salary.

This

And it is true that it is possible for teams with smaller salaries to win the world series. But it is far less likely. The margin of error is so much smaller for teams with lower payrolls. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox have more room to make mistakes with acquisitions because they are in the position to spend more money. If the mlb had every team on the same level (with a salary cap) each season fans would see different teams competing for divisions (like the NFL).

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 12:59 PM
MLB has more parity than any other sport

Haters just wanna hate.

LikeAMachine
11-23-2010, 12:59 PM
Would neg again but on spread

leafs43
11-23-2010, 01:03 PM
MLB has more parity than any other sport

Haters just wanna hate.

lol, no it doesn't.

In fact it has some of the worst parity.


You could start rattling off team names and automatically know where they will finish the next year.

weakguy
11-23-2010, 01:15 PM
my cubs suck and they spent a **** ton of money. now they have huge money tied up in horrible contracts that they can't get rid of. feels bad man.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 01:18 PM
lol, no it doesn't.

In fact it has some of the worst parity.


You could start rattling off team names and automatically know where they will finish the next year.

Division Winners over the last 5 years

NL East
Phillies 4 times
Mets 1 time

NL Central
Reds 1 time
Cardinals 2 times
Cubs 2 times

NL West
Padres 1 time
Dodgers 2 times
Giants 1 time
D'Backs 1 time

AL East
Rays 2 times
Yankees 2 times
Red Sox 1 time

AL Central
Twins 3 times
White Sox 1 time
Indians 1 time

AL West
Angels 3 times
A's 1 time
Rangers 1 time


In the last 5 years every division except for the NL East has had at least 3 different division winners.

Show me another sport with this many different division winners in 5 years time.


NFL

AFC East
Patriots 4 times
Dolphins 1 time

AFC North
Bengals 2 times
Steelers 2 times
Ravens 1 time

AFC South
Colts 4 times
Titans 1 time

AFC West
Chargers 4 times
Broncos 1 time

NFC East (easily the most competitive in the NFL)
Cowboys 2 times
Giants 2 times
Eagles 1 time

NFC South (easily the biggest cluster f*ck in the NFL)
Buccs 2 times
NO 2 times
Panthers 1 time

NFC North
Bears 2 times
Vikings 2 times
Packers 1 time

NFC West
Seahawks 3 times
Cards 2 times


Even though NFL has two more divisions than MLB, MLB has put up 18 different division winners in the past 5 years compared the the NFL's 20 different division winners. On top of that the MLB only has 1 team who has won it 4 times (thanks a lot for f*cking it up Braves, it would have been 0) while the NFL had 3

/debate

leafs43
11-23-2010, 01:22 PM
The NFL has only 4 teams per division.

The only MLB division that has 4 teams is the AL west. The rest have 5 teams (or 6 in the NL central). With larger divisions you should see even less teams having won multiple division titles if more parity was evident.

Jyeatbvg
11-23-2010, 01:23 PM
People wanna cry about out of control salaries? The World Series was between the 10th and 27th highest payrolls in MLB while 3 of the top 5 payroll teams didn't even make the playoffs.

brb crying about the Yankees leading the world in salary and "buying a world series" and forgetting they've won 1 world series the last decade

strong logic

sports misc disappoints today

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 01:28 PM
The NFL has only 4 teams per division.

The only MLB division that has 4 teams is the AL west. The rest have 5 teams (or 6 in the NL central). With larger divisions you should see even less teams having won multiple division titles if more parity was evident.

And yet with 8 division winners every year you've still only managed 2 more winners in the past 5 years than the MLB. We just gonna ignore that little fact?

brb handing out 40 division titles to 20 different teams

or

brb handing out 30 division titles to 18 different teams


Now tell me which has more parity. This isn't even a discussion. You football homers are ridiculous. Let it go....you lost.

Antonio519
11-23-2010, 01:30 PM
my cubs suck and they spent a **** ton of money. now they have huge money tied up in horrible contracts that they can't get rid of. feels bad man.

lol this, the cubs have like the 3rd highest payroll, look where that has gotten us...fml

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 01:31 PM
Fact: There's been 9 different WS winners in the last 10 years in the MLB while there's been just 7 different SB winners in the last 10 years

I can go all day NFL homers. MLB parity sh*ts on you in every way

leafs43
11-23-2010, 01:34 PM
And yet with 8 division winners every year you've still only managed 2 more winners in the past 5 years than the MLB. We just gonna ignore that little fact?

brb handing out 40 division titles to 20 different teams

or

brb handing out 30 division titles to 18 different teams


Now tell me which has more parity. This isn't even a discussion. You football homers are ridiculous. Let it go....you lost.


How about to how many teams went first to last and last to first and movement within divisions in both sports over a 10 year span.

That is the true definition of parity.

If the Yankees, Braves, Red Sox, etc go 1st or 2nd in their division every year, that isn't parity.

E-Go
11-23-2010, 01:38 PM
Some of the highest payrolls in MLB have terrible teams.

But that isn't the problem. The problem is small market teams can not afford to farm up talent and keep it over long periods of time. As soon as a player in a small market hits .300, 40 home runs, 90 rbis he will go to a team that will quadruple his salary.

This

Teams like Tampa lose people like Crawford (and probably Longo, if they hadn't gotten him inked to a long term before he exploded)

3 of the top 5, who we got?
Boston - Injuries devestated them
Dodgers - Divorce of team owner kept them from adding at trading deadline
Mets - Horribly run franchise

PitBillSoxFan
11-23-2010, 01:40 PM
How about to how many teams went first to last and last to first and movement within divisions in both sports over a 10 year span.

That is the true definition of parity.

Wait, a team going from first to worst or the other way around is parity? And that's shows parity more than having more/different teams going to and winning the World Series...?

notsureifsrs.jpg

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 01:43 PM
How about to how many teams went first to last and last to first and movement within divisions in both sports over a 10 year span.

That is the true definition of parity.

No it's not. Because baseball is about development. MLB teams dont get a shot in the arm every year from the draft the same way NFL teams do. You can't just turn an MLB team around in one season.


Fact: Despite giving out 20 extra playoff spots in a 5 year span, NFL has managed to only have 25 different playoff teams out of 60 total spots in comparison to the MLB's 21 different teams for 40 spots.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 01:48 PM
1 player does not have as big of an impact on a team in the MLB in comparison to the NFL.

Falcons drafted Matt Ryan and went from one of the worst teams in the NFL to a playoff team.

The Braves can't just bring in Tommy Hanson and have the entire team become playoff caliber (and the Braves aren't even a last place team, they were .500 when they called him up and it still didn't push them into the playoffs despite how good he was as a rookie. Shows how little of an impact 1 player can have)

So yeah...sorry but it's not some quick fix for an MLB team to become a winner. It actually takes development.

kclulz88
11-23-2010, 01:57 PM
1 player does not have as big of an impact on a team in the MLB in comparison to the NFL.

Falcons drafted Matt Ryan and went from one of the worst teams in the NFL to a playoff team.

The Braves can't just bring in Tommy Hanson and have the entire team become playoff caliber (and the Braves aren't even a last place team, they were .500 when they called him up and it still didn't push them into the playoffs despite how good he was as a rookie. Shows how little of an impact 1 player can have)

So yeah...sorry but it's not some quick fix for an MLB team to become a winner. It actually takes development.


So you are saying if the Yankees don't sign the top free agents every year they would still be good? The only reason they are in the playoffs damn near every year is because there is no salary cap. True it doesn't take one player, but without the numerous big names they sign they wouldn't be competing for championships every year. I just don't see how you could think having a salary cap in the MLB would be a bad thing.

evilsteve02
11-23-2010, 02:22 PM
It does. Even without one.


I always find it's the fans in the markets with low payrolls and horrible teams that call for a salary cap. The Royals would still be bad with a salary cap.

And this year was evidence that the system is fine.

I think there are 2 problems with baseball. 1. the playoff system is horrible. The Blue Jays can win 120 games, but if the yankees and one other team win 121..they don't make the playoffs, yet the Indians could win the Central with 75 wins and make the playoffs. 2. Payroll would make baseball more enjoyable to watch. The Royals have a right to complain becuase they put in the scouting, money, and risk in high draft picks, build them into their prime then teams like the Yankees swoop in and sign them because they can overpay for a player. The Yankees probably wouldn't make the playoffs if it weren't for Free Agency. In the NL, i will say that there is always a different teams making the playoffs...but in the AL, 2 spots are typically going to go to the Yankees, Angels, or Red Sox. Teams in the mid-small markets might make a 2 or 3 year run, but after that they usually lack the revenue to resign their key players and remain able to compete year in and year out, unlike the high payroll teams that can sign FA's to make up for lack of minor league depth.

E-Go
11-23-2010, 02:25 PM
This

Teams like Tampa lose people like Crawford (and probably Longo, if they hadn't gotten him inked to a long term before he exploded)

3 of the top 5, who we got?
Boston - Injuries devestated them
Dodgers - Divorce of team owner kept them from adding at trading deadline
Mets - Horribly run franchise

also, Cubs missed due to horrible contracts they shelled out. All I'm saying, is put it into perspective. They can buy playoff teams when Oakland and the like can't.

Evil makes a good point about the playoff structure, but all sports have divisions

Animal_Strength
11-23-2010, 02:39 PM
Some of the highest payrolls in MLB have terrible teams.

But that isn't the problem. The problem is small market teams can not afford to farm up talent and keep it over long periods of time. As soon as a player in a small market hits .300, 40 home runs, 90 rbis he will go to a team that will quadruple his salary.

small market teams choose not to. if they are in poor locations, or choose not to spend their money wisely, or at all on their team, it is not the fault of large market teams.

the marlins signed john buck to 3 years 18 million. my point = proven.

Be_Easy_25
11-23-2010, 02:53 PM
how is this an argument?
baseball people pls go....talk parity all u want.
there is no chance for any franchise in small markets to compete long term like the yankees or the sox.
let this argument go.

how can u use the rays as an argument for parity but then neglect whats happening to them this off season?....their team is basically getting gutted.
cubs fans....u had a run...u choked it off.
mets fans?....u had a run...u choked it off.
dont act like money got u absolutely nowhere.


as soon as a player gets good...they are going to a big market...this doesnt insure a winning team...being a great general manager is more than paying people money.

but it keeps teams like those relevant....in the race...in media discussions....while we literally have watched baseball die in places like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Oakland...places that were once historical sites for some of baseballs greatest moments.

pls go.
this isnt even comparable to the nfl....teams get good in the nfl and stay good.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 03:39 PM
So you are saying if the Yankees don't sign the top free agents every year they would still be good? The only reason they are in the playoffs damn near every year is because there is no salary cap. True it doesn't take one player, but without the numerous big names they sign they wouldn't be competing for championships every year. I just don't see how you could think having a salary cap in the MLB would be a bad thing.

No that's not even what Im discussing in here. Obviously the Yankees are good because they sign numerous FA every year. No one is debating that.

What I was arguing was parity. Who cares if Yankees sign a sh*tload of people. It hasn't helped them win any more than the Marlins in the past decade. And if you're whining about them being a threat every year, all sports have their good teams who are threats every year. You telling me the Patriots aren't good every year, and the Lakers aren't good every year?

The whole argument for a salary cap is so other teams have a chance....but other teams already do have a chance. Even more so in MLB than in the NFL like I already proved. That's why this discussion is so mind numbingly stupid

Animal_Strength
11-23-2010, 03:42 PM
No that's not even what Im discussing in here. Obviously the Yankees are good because they sign numerous FA every year. No one is debating that.

What I was arguing was parity. Who cares if Yankees sign a sh*tload of people. It hasn't helped them win any more than the Marlins in the past decade. And if you're whining about them being a threat every year, all sports have their good teams who are threats every year. You telling me the Patriots aren't good every year, and the Lakers aren't good every year?

The whole argument for a salary cap is so other teams have a chance....but other teams already do have a chance. Even more so in MLB than in the NFL like I already proved. That's why this discussion is so mind numbingly stupid

this.

and in reference to your previous post about a single player you are definitely correct... look what lebron did for the cavs, etc.

3000RT
11-23-2010, 03:43 PM
Some of the highest payrolls in MLB have terrible teams.

But that isn't the problem. The problem is small market teams can not afford to farm up talent and keep it over long periods of time. As soon as a player in a small market hits .300, 40 home runs, 90 rbis he will go to a team that will quadruple his salary.

Ex. Nick Swisher

Animal_Strength
11-23-2010, 03:44 PM
So you are saying if the Yankees don't sign the top free agents every year they would still be good? The only reason they are in the playoffs damn near every year is because there is no salary cap. True it doesn't take one player, but without the numerous big names they sign they wouldn't be competing for championships every year. I just don't see how you could think having a salary cap in the MLB would be a bad thing.

a salary cap would do nothing but hurt small market teams, as it would eliminate revenue sharing and payroll tax.

and fyi, on the yankee current team that have 3 players signed through free agency who were not on the team via trade or homegrown player. sabathia, tex, and burnett.

Animal_Strength
11-23-2010, 03:44 PM
Ex. Nick Swisher

i never knew swisher hit 300 and hit 40 hrs.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 04:00 PM
how is this an argument?
baseball people pls go....talk parity all u want.
there is no chance for any franchise in small markets to compete long term like the yankees or the sox.
let this argument go.

how can u use the rays as an argument for parity but then neglect whats happening to them this off season?....their team is basically getting gutted.
cubs fans....u had a run...u choked it off.
mets fans?....u had a run...u choked it off.
dont act like money got u absolutely nowhere.


as soon as a player gets good...they are going to a big market...this doesnt insure a winning team...being a great general manager is more than paying people money.

but it keeps teams like those relevant....in the race...in media discussions....while we literally have watched baseball die in places like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Oakland...places that were once historical sites for some of baseballs greatest moments.

pls go.
this isnt even comparable to the nfl....teams get good in the nfl and stay good.

The Red Sox weren't even good 10 years ago.

And your salary cap in football sure has done wonders for the Lions, Browns, Texans, and Bills

When was the last time these teams were any good?

The Bills haven't sustained winning since 1993
The Lions haven't sustained winning since 1995 (and Im being generous here)
Texans haven't sustained winning since...well....ever
Browns haven't sustained winning since 1988


As far as competing long term, how many seasons did the Falcons have before they even had back to back winning seasons? I'll give you a hint, we just did it last year for the first time.

When was the last time the Bengals, or Panthers, or Redskins were good long term?

Bengals....never had more than 2 back to back winning seasons
Panthers.....never had back to back winning seasons
Redskins....1991 was the end of their last sustained run

The funny part is, the Pirates, Indians, and A's have all had more recent, sustained runs than anybody I've listed from the NFL.

Indians were a juggernaut in the mid to late 90s
Pirates were incredibly good in the early 90s before they lost Bonds
As had that dream staff of Mulder, Hudson, and Zito where they went to the playoffs 5 times from 2000-2006

So don't talk to me about sustaining runs, because you clearly dont know jack sh*t and are pretty much talking out of your ass right about now

You have to either be trolling or incredibly stupid.

Now STFU football homers. Ive owned every point you phaggots tried to make in here. A smart person would keep quiet because right now you all look like fools.

NDame knows the feeling well. Ironic enough Im again owning people in one of his threads.....just like old times right NDame

kclulz88
11-23-2010, 04:04 PM
a salary cap would do nothing but hurt small market teams, as it would eliminate revenue sharing and payroll tax.

and fyi, on the yankee current team that have 3 players signed through free agency who were not on the team via trade or homegrown player. sabathia, tex, and burnett.

Its just not free agency with the Yankees, with their huge payroll they can afford to trade for big money players that other teams just can't.

Obviously you are a Yankees fan and you don't want the system to change, cause fair or not you are benefiting from it greatly. Its true that teams that have high salaries don't always compete (cubs, mets) but its disgusting for the rest of baseball to watch them overpay for players every year and keep talent from going to smaller markets.

As a Royals fan, it gets old watching us develop talent and watch them get swooped by larger markets whenever they bust out. If there were a salary cap, it would force they larger markets to decide on which players they wanted to pay, just not pay everyone.

And to say that a salary cap would hurt smaller markets is asinine.

Animal_Strength
11-23-2010, 04:08 PM
Its just not free agency with the Yankees, with their huge payroll they can afford to trade for big money players that other teams just can't.

Obviously you are a Yankees fan and you don't want the system to change, cause fair or not you are benefiting from it greatly. Its true that teams that have high salaries don't always compete (cubs, mets) but its disgusting for the rest of baseball to watch them overpay for players every year and keep talent from going to smaller markets.

As a Royals fan, it gets old watching us develop talent and watch them get swooped by larger markets whenever they bust out. If there were a salary cap, it would force they larger markets to decide on which players they wanted to pay, just not pay everyone.

And to say that a salary cap would hurt smaller markets is asinine.

how would it help them? they still dont spend the money! and the royals spend money foolishly and do not have a good front office hence why they dont compete. dayton moore is one of the, if not the, worst GMs in baseball. with few solid young players that are reliable, how can you expect to compete?

who was the last player the royals developed that blossomed into a star who they traded away? dejesus? not really. beltran? probably. the royals just suck.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 04:12 PM
Its just not free agency with the Yankees, with their huge payroll they can afford to trade for big money players that other teams just can't.

Obviously you are a Yankees fan and you don't want the system to change, cause fair or not you are benefiting from it greatly. Its true that teams that have high salaries don't always compete (cubs, mets) but its disgusting for the rest of baseball to watch them overpay for players every year and keep talent from going to smaller markets.

As a Royals fan, it gets old watching us develop talent and watch them get swooped by larger markets whenever they bust out. If there were a salary cap, it would force they larger markets to decide on which players they wanted to pay, just not pay everyone.

And to say that a salary cap would hurt smaller markets is asinine.

What talent have you phaggots developed?

Kansas City is one cluster f*ck of an organization. Not only do you not spend money but even your minor league system is a joke. The best player you've produced in the last decade was Carlos Beltran. Sweeney and Greinke both played their entire careers in KC so you cant even bitch about them. So Beltran is like the only player you even lost who was worth a damn...

lol at you saying you develop talent and then lose it. Not sure if serious.

Fix your sh*t organization before complaining.

thacalikid911
11-23-2010, 04:23 PM
lol so ****ing hard when people use that argument.

Look at total championships phaggot

E-Go
11-23-2010, 04:25 PM
a salary cap would do nothing but hurt small market teams, as it would eliminate revenue sharing and payroll tax.

and fyi, on the yankee current team that have 3 players signed through free agency who were not on the team via trade or homegrown player. sabathia, tex, and burnett.

Your not counting at least 2. A Rod voided his deal and was technically a free agent, he was able to sign with anyone. Andy was homegrown, but left, so he was a free as well. That's all I can think of at the moment.

E-Go
11-23-2010, 04:27 PM
Its just not free agency with the Yankees, with their huge payroll they can afford to trade for big money players that other teams just can't.

Obviously you are a Yankees fan and you don't want the system to change, cause fair or not you are benefiting from it greatly. Its true that teams that have high salaries don't always compete (cubs, mets) but its disgusting for the rest of baseball to watch them overpay for players every year and keep talent from going to smaller markets.

As a Royals fan, it gets old watching us develop talent and watch them get swooped by larger markets whenever they bust out. If there were a salary cap, it would force they larger markets to decide on which players they wanted to pay, just not pay everyone.

And to say that a salary cap would hurt smaller markets is asinine.

it must suck hearing all the rumors of them trading your only marketable player, Greinke.

Animal_Strength
11-23-2010, 04:29 PM
Your not counting at least 2. A Rod voided his deal and was technically a free agent, he was able to sign with anyone. Andy was homegrown, but left, so he was a free as well. That's all I can think of at the moment.

arod was still acquired through a trade that led to him re-signing with the yankees, and andy is still homegrown and would still be making the same salary.

E-Go
11-23-2010, 04:38 PM
The Red Sox weren't even good 10 years ago.

And your salary cap in football sure has done wonders for the Lions, Browns, Texans, and Bills

When was the last time these teams were any good?

The Bills haven't sustained winning since 1993
The Lions haven't sustained winning since 1995 (and Im being generous here)
Texans haven't sustained winning since...well....ever
Browns haven't sustained winning since 1988


As far as competing long term, how many seasons did the Falcons have before they even had back to back winning seasons? I'll give you a hint, we just did it last year for the first time.

When was the last time the Bengals, or Panthers, or Redskins were good long term?

Bengals....never had more than 2 back to back winning seasons
Panthers.....never had back to back winning seasons
Redskins....1991 was the end of their last sustained run

The funny part is, the Pirates, Indians, and A's have all had more recent, sustained runs than anybody I've listed from the NFL.

Indians were a juggernaut in the mid to late 90s
Pirates were incredibly good in the early 90s before they lost Bonds
As had that dream staff of Mulder, Hudson, and Zito where they went to the playoffs 5 times from 2000-2006

So don't talk to me about sustaining runs, because you clearly dont know jack sh*t and are pretty much talking out of your ass right about now

You have to either be trolling or incredibly stupid.

Now STFU football homers. Ive owned every point you phaggots tried to make in here. A smart person would keep quiet because right now you all look like fools.

NDame knows the feeling well. Ironic enough Im again owning people in one of his threads.....just like old times right NDame

You make the points well, but you have to take this into account. These smaller market teams have to have amazing organizations and incredible luck to even last 5 or 6 years as a competitor before they have to clean house. Look at the Marlins, they have won 2 titles and gutted their teams and pretty much completly rebuilt the organizations. They make one or 2 bad moves and they lose years. The Yankees have the payroll to erase those bad decisions. Carl Pavano was a horrible signing for them, but they had the payroll/talent to cover it up. If he had gotten that deal in a mid market competitor (like Minn, where he is now), they'd be done. Mike Hampton, signed a huge deal with a mid market with Colorado and it took them years to recover from that deal. Barry Zito will never live up to his contract and the Giants have suffered from it

floppyflaps
11-23-2010, 04:40 PM
Still doesn't change the fact that baseball is boring and awful to watch. Occasionally I'll try to get hyped for it and keep track of scores and stats and stuff, then I'll sit down to watch a game all excited, then fall asleep.

Also what I like about football is that good teams can go to awful teams in just one season, and bad teams can go to great teams in the same time. If your team is awful for a long period of time, it's all because of management and coaching, and it's time to complain until it's changed.

Animal_Strength
11-23-2010, 04:46 PM
You make the points well, but you have to take this into account. These smaller market teams have to have amazing organizations and incredible luck to even last 5 or 6 years as a competitor before they have to clean house. Look at the Marlins, they have won 2 titles and gutted their teams and pretty much completly rebuilt the organizations. They make one or 2 bad moves and they lose years. The Yankees have the payroll to erase those bad decisions. Carl Pavano was a horrible signing for them, but they had the payroll/talent to cover it up. If he had gotten that deal in a mid market competitor (like Minn, where he is now), they'd be done. Mike Hampton, signed a huge deal with a mid market with Colorado and it took them years to recover from that deal. Barry Zito will never live up to his contract and the Giants have suffered from it

yeah the giants were dead this year with this world series win and theyre still paying zito!

and colorado made the series not too long ago.

lmao. bad signings happen with every team and most recover.

evilsteve02
11-23-2010, 04:51 PM
Personally i would be ok if instead of a salary cap, teams should be allowed to Cut 1 player each season w/o having to pay them for their entire contract. For instance: if someone is signed to a 3yr 75 million dollar contract (3yr at 25mil a season) and they suck after 2 season, a team should be able to cut them and only pay for the 2 years not the total amount of his contract. I think it would allow small/mid market teams to go out and maybe take the chance and spend some bigger bucks on a star player w/o the full risk of being ****ed if the person sucks and tying up your payroll for a long time.

I know as a working class person i wouldn't feel too sorry if someone signed a long deal for millions, sucked and got cut loose after a few seasons. boo hoo, they made millions and will probably end up getting picked up by another team and get paid a few mil anyways.

Tyler44
11-23-2010, 04:56 PM
People wanna cry about out of control salaries? The World Series was between the 10th and 27th highest payrolls in MLB while 3 of the top 5 payroll teams didn't even make the playoffs.

brb crying about the Yankees leading the world in salary and "buying a world series" and forgetting they've won 1 world series the last decade

No, but the Yankees are a playoff team no matter what every single season(as well as Boston usually)

Money buys Rings, end of story.

Small market rarely every competes well against large market.

E-Go
11-23-2010, 05:01 PM
yeah the giants were dead this year with this world series win and theyre still paying zito!

and colorado made the series not too long ago.

lmao. bad signings happen with every team and most recover.

Colorado made it years after they got Hampton off the books. And what did they do after the Series, trade the best player they had because they were going to lose him and get nothing the next year. The Giants are a good story, but they are not built (currently) to contend year in and year out. Your obtributing contending 1 year for success, we are talking about continous success.

Animal_Strength
11-23-2010, 05:04 PM
Colorado made it years after they got Hampton off the books. And what did they do after the Series, trade the best player they had because they were going to lose him and get nothing the next year. The Giants are a good story, but they are not built (currently) to contend year in and year out. Your obtributing contending 1 year for success, we are talking about continous success.

oh yeah, they traded their best player and only got an MVP candidate in return, poor babies.

E-Go
11-23-2010, 05:10 PM
oh yeah, they traded their best player and only got an MVP candidate in return, poor babies.

They got lucky with Cargo having a great year. How often does that happen? Have the people Florida got for Miguel and Dontrell done anything? Have the people Cleveland got for Lee and CC done anything? I can think of 2 instances off the top of my head, Cargo/Holiday trade and ARod to Yankees, where the Rangers had Soriano for a little while and then lost him to what? A large market team via free agency.

Animal_Strength
11-23-2010, 05:18 PM
They got lucky with Cargo having a great year. How often does that happen? Have the people Florida got for Miguel and Dontrell done anything? Have the people Cleveland got for Lee and CC done anything? I can think of 2 instances off the top of my head, Cargo/Holiday trade and ARod to Yankees, where the Rangers had Soriano for a little while and then lost him to what? A large market team via free agency.

well thats where your wrong bub! remember the rangers traded soriano to the nationals?

florida is just retarded... as is the logic behind this.

E-Go
11-23-2010, 05:49 PM
well thats where your wrong bub! remember the rangers traded soriano to the nationals?

florida is just retarded... as is the logic behind this.

Was he in the last year of his deal in Texas? Last year or 2 I think

logic behind what? Smaller market teams lose their best prospects/talents to larger market teams. It happens all of the time

CuteAesthetics
11-23-2010, 06:07 PM
true

kclulz88
11-23-2010, 06:18 PM
What talent have you phaggots developed?

Kansas City is one cluster f*ck of an organization. Not only do you not spend money but even your minor league system is a joke. The best player you've produced in the last decade was Carlos Beltran. Sweeney and Greinke both played their entire careers in KC so you cant even bitch about them. So Beltran is like the only player you even lost who was worth a damn...

lol at you saying you develop talent and then lose it. Not sure if serious.

Fix your sh*t organization before complaining.

Baseball America lists the Royals minor league system as the best in baseball right now. We have been stock piling talent for a while now trying to do it the way the Twins do. Thats our only choice since we can't go out and throw money around like the Yankees.

kclulz88
11-23-2010, 06:22 PM
it must suck hearing all the rumors of them trading your only marketable player, Greinke.

Ya, it sucks but he doens't want to have to wait for all of our talent to come up and I don't blame him. He is one of the most competitive people in baseball and the Royals won't be contending in the division until 2013 or 2014. He needs to be pitching for a playoff caliber team now

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 06:35 PM
You make the points well, but you have to take this into account. These smaller market teams have to have amazing organizations and incredible luck to even last 5 or 6 years as a competitor before they have to clean house. Look at the Marlins, they have won 2 titles and gutted their teams and pretty much completly rebuilt the organizations. They make one or 2 bad moves and they lose years. The Yankees have the payroll to erase those bad decisions. Carl Pavano was a horrible signing for them, but they had the payroll/talent to cover it up. If he had gotten that deal in a mid market competitor (like Minn, where he is now), they'd be done. Mike Hampton, signed a huge deal with a mid market with Colorado and it took them years to recover from that deal. Barry Zito will never live up to his contract and the Giants have suffered from it


Yeah the Yankees have more room for error. No doubt. But setting a salary cap will do what exactly? Those small market teams aren't going to spend jack sh*t.

You know who a salary cap will help the most? Mid-level teams like the Braves who spend in the 80M-90M range. What's gonna happen is the Yankees wont be able to buy players so teams like the Braves, who are willing to spend just not spend absurd amounts, will pick up those players because the Yankees will be capped out

Teams like the Pirates and Marlins won't do jack sh*t because they are unwilling to spend. A salary cap doesnt change that. A salary floor would. And like I said before I think a floor may even end up reducing the Yankees payroll because teams like the Marlins are forced to spend so they have a lot of money if the floor is high enough (like 80M like NDame suggested). Then the Yankees are left with fewer players to buy because there's a ton of teams under $80M.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 06:36 PM
Baseball America lists the Royals minor league system as the best in baseball right now. We have been stock piling talent for a while now trying to do it the way the Twins do. Thats our only choice since we can't go out and throw money around like the Yankees.

Doesn't matter none of them have turned out any good. No teams are coming in and swooping your players so you have nothing to be mad about. No one wants your players.

GetBigyo
11-23-2010, 06:39 PM
Salary cap won't solve sh*t.

For example lets say the cap goes down to like 130mill or so. What is this going to do? All you do is bring the Yankees to the same payroll as teams like the Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, and Angels. Teams like the Pirates, Royals, Marlins, etc. will still continue to spend nothing. A salary cap would not force teams to spend which is why there should be a salary floor.

kclulz88
11-23-2010, 06:53 PM
Doesn't matter none of them have turned out any good. No teams are coming in and swooping your players so you have nothing to be mad about. No one wants your players.

These are all players that are still in the minors. Outside of Royals fans I doubt any casual fans have heard of them, yet (hopefully)

evilsteve02
11-23-2010, 06:54 PM
Salary cap won't solve sh*t.

For example lets say the cap goes down to like 130mill or so. What is this going to do? All you do is bring the Yankees to the same payroll as teams like the Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, and Angels. Teams like the Pirates, Royals, Marlins, etc. will still continue to spend nothing. A salary cap would not force teams to spend which is why there should be a salary floor.

ehhh...i don't think it would be that high...i would assume it would be set at around 95-100 million. Small market teams won't hit that, but it is a small step in direction of keeping the small/mid market teams from being the Yankees, Angels, Red Sox, and Mets AAA team.

i'd still think being able to release 1 or 2 players a year w/o paying their full contract out is a good compromise.

Animal_Strength
11-23-2010, 06:59 PM
ehhh...i don't think it would be that high...i would assume it would be set at around 95-100 million. Small market teams won't hit that, but it is a small step in direction of keeping the small/mid market teams from being the Yankees, Angels, Red Sox, and Mets AAA team.

i'd still think being able to release 1 or 2 players a year w/o paying their full contract out is a good compromise.

so 10 teams would have to lower their payroll? that makes no sense.

release 1 or 2 players without paying their salaries? are you guys insane or something? that is the most ridiculous and unrealistic proposition i have ever heard.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 07:01 PM
release 1 or 2 players without paying their salaries? are you guys insane or something? that is the most ridiculous and unrealistic proposition i have ever heard.

lol Im gonna agree

NYY
11-23-2010, 07:03 PM
Fact: There's been 9 different WS winners in the last 10 years in the MLB while there's been just 7 different SB winners in the last 10 years

I can go all day NFL homers. MLB parity sh*ts on you in every way

bbacn and I see eye to eye here.

E-Go
11-23-2010, 07:13 PM
Yeah the Yankees have more room for error. No doubt. But setting a salary cap will do what exactly? Those small market teams aren't going to spend jack sh*t.

You know who a salary cap will help the most? Mid-level teams like the Braves who spend in the 80M-90M range. What's gonna happen is the Yankees wont be able to buy players so teams like the Braves, who are willing to spend just not spend absurd amounts, will pick up those players because the Yankees will be capped out

Teams like the Pirates and Marlins won't do jack sh*t because they are unwilling to spend. A salary cap doesnt change that. A salary floor would. And like I said before I think a floor may even end up reducing the Yankees payroll because teams like the Marlins are forced to spend so they have a lot of money if the floor is high enough (like 80M like NDame suggested). Then the Yankees are left with fewer players to buy because there's a ton of teams under $80M.

true

Be_Easy_25
11-23-2010, 10:30 PM
The Red Sox weren't even good 10 years ago.

And your salary cap in football sure has done wonders for the Lions, Browns, Texans, and Bills

When was the last time these teams were any good?

The Bills haven't sustained winning since 1993
The Lions haven't sustained winning since 1995 (and Im being generous here)
Texans haven't sustained winning since...well....ever
Browns haven't sustained winning since 1988


As far as competing long term, how many seasons did the Falcons have before they even had back to back winning seasons? I'll give you a hint, we just did it last year for the first time.

When was the last time the Bengals, or Panthers, or Redskins were good long term?

Bengals....never had more than 2 back to back winning seasons
Panthers.....never had back to back winning seasons
Redskins....1991 was the end of their last sustained run

The funny part is, the Pirates, Indians, and A's have all had more recent, sustained runs than anybody I've listed from the NFL.

Indians were a juggernaut in the mid to late 90s
Pirates were incredibly good in the early 90s before they lost Bonds
As had that dream staff of Mulder, Hudson, and Zito where they went to the playoffs 5 times from 2000-2006

So don't talk to me about sustaining runs, because you clearly dont know jack sh*t and are pretty much talking out of your ass right about now

You have to either be trolling or incredibly stupid.

Now STFU football homers. Ive owned every point you phaggots tried to make in here. A smart person would keep quiet because right now you all look like fools.

NDame knows the feeling well. Ironic enough Im again owning people in one of his threads.....just like old times right NDame

and then again.
u fall to ur own logic
oakland couldnt pay....that entire team was dismantled.
neither could cleveland....dismantled.
u just mentioned football teams that have stunk since the mid-90s yet u mention the pirates who havent done anything since 1992....yet im the troll?...rofl...not sure if cereal.

my point is this...no team...no matter what market they are in should be in fear that when their star players rookie contract is up that they'll be going to be in pinstripes and that theres nothing they can do about it.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 10:49 PM
and then again.
u fall to ur own logic
oakland couldnt pay....that entire team was dismantled.
neither could cleveland....dismantled.
u just mentioned football teams that have stunk since the mid-90s yet u mention the pirates who havent done anything since 1992....yet im the troll?...rofl...not sure if cereal.


Really? That's trolling? Because you're trying to say a salary cap is better but the NFL which is capped has the exact same problems.

So how is a salary cap better again?

F*cking fail bro....f*cking fail.



And yeah...teams rise and fall. That is sports my friend. So apparently a 7 year run for the A's is no longer acceptable? WTF are you a retard or something? Hudson, Zito, and Mulder should have been A's forever or something? GTFO brah. Even the Braves, who were one of the highest payroll teams saw Glavine and Maddux leave. Players don't stay forever. You're a moron.

Be_Easy_25
11-23-2010, 10:56 PM
Really? That's trolling? Because you're trying to say a salary cap is better but the NFL which is capped has the exact same problems.

So how is a salary cap better again?

F*cking fail bro....f*cking fail.

how about this.
the nfl season is actually occurring...its not in the offseason like baseball.

do this.
tell me who is going to make the super bowl this year.

then tell me who is going to make the world series next year.

then i want u to look at both of these predictions...and decide which bet ud rather bet ur entire life savings, home, all assetts etc. on.

its a long shot.
but to do this requires a level of honesty....which u probably wont give.
ull prolly jus yell some other nonsense about how ur right.
but whatever.

Be_Easy_25
11-23-2010, 10:57 PM
Really? That's trolling? Because you're trying to say a salary cap is better but the NFL which is capped has the exact same problems.

So how is a salary cap better again?

F*cking fail bro....f*cking fail.



And yeah...teams rise and fall. That is sports my friend. So apparently a 7 year run for the A's is no longer acceptable? WTF are you a retard or something? Hudson, Zito, and Mulder should have been A's forever or something? GTFO brah. Even the Braves, who were one of the highest payroll teams saw Glavine and Maddux leave. Players don't stay forever. You're a moron.

what an idiot?
they didnt have giambi?
damon?
tejada?
rofl...pls go.

THEY HAVE NOT ONE SINGLE REMNANT OF THAT TEAM LEFT AND ALL THOSE GUYS ARE STILL PLAYING.
PLEASE GTFO.
ur a troll.
whens the last time someone of importance was a career oakland athletic?
rofl....it only happens for the yankees and sox and big city teams...pls go.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 10:57 PM
Let me quote you again:


there is no chance for any franchise in small markets to compete long term


Now unless by "long term" you mean forever I pretty much sh*t all over your point about how the Pirates, A's, and Indians were successful for an extended period of time.

There's some NFL teams who have never even had back to back winning seasons and you're coming at me with some garbage about how small market MLB teams can sustain success?

I mean I just want to make sure Im getting this right. So if a salary cap can't even help all NFL teams win back to back seasons at some point in their history how the hell is it supposed to help the MLB again?

Mind = blown

Some of you football phaggots are in straight denial when Im shoving truth down your throats

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 10:59 PM
what an idiot?
they didnt have giambi?
damon?
tejada?
rofl...pls go.

THEY HAVE NOT ONE SINGLE REMNANT OF THAT TEAM LEFT.
PLEASE GTFO.
ur a troll.
whens the last time someone of importance was a career oakland athletic?
rofl....it only happens for the yankees and sox and big city teams...pls go.

So what? You said they couldnt sustain success. Does that mean they have to have it forever or something? Are you f*cking stupid? Actually thats a dumb question, because yes you are a f*cking moron. There's no way around it



UPDATE GUYS

MLB players are now no longer allowed to leave any team ever, for any reason whatsoever. They are to remain with their starting club for their entire careers or parity in MLB will suffer.

That's what Im hearing right now.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 11:01 PM
whens the last time someone of importance was a career oakland athletic?


Mariano Rivera
Derek Jeter
Chipper Jones


Find me any other player who has stayed with one team his whole career who is good. You can't. Players do not stay with one team any more. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with big market vs. small market you jackass.


When was the last time someone was a career Red Sox? Or Tiger? Or Met? Or Cub?

Go ahead dumbass I can wait. Those are big market clubs. Where are their career players? Idiot.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 11:04 PM
You can add Pujols to the list above as well. So a whooping 4 marquee players in the entire league have managed to play their careers for 1 club.

Be_Easy_25
11-23-2010, 11:09 PM
So what? You said they couldnt sustain success. Does that mean they have to have it forever or something? Are you f*cking stupid? Actually thats a dumb question, because yes you are a f*cking moron. There's no way around it



UPDATE GUYS

MLB players are now no longer allowed to leave any team ever, for any reason whatsoever. They are to remain with their starting club for their entire careers or parity in MLB will suffer.

That's what Im hearing right now.

it's not about players pledging allegiance to a team.
it's about the same thing happening every time to teams....this wasnt the As team of the 70s that got broken up by bad management/ ownership

scenario:
good players....big market teams want them....they cant afford...players gone.

same thing with cleveland.
same thing with the marlins....rofl at them.
same thing with the rays this year.

nobody has to stay anywhere.
but no fool is going to turn away 100 million dollars...and these teams cant ante up like the yankees or sox can.
if u dont put a ceiling on what they can add to their team....these teams will continually lose these players and baseball will continue to die in their city.

heard anything out of oakland outside of dallas braden last year?
ok...its dying there.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 11:22 PM
it's not about players pledging allegiance to a team.
it's about the same thing happening every time to teams....this wasnt the As team of the 70s that got broken up by bad management/ ownership

scenario:
good players....big market teams want them....they cant afford...players gone.

same thing with cleveland.
same thing with the marlins....rofl at them.
same thing with the rays this year.

nobody has to stay anywhere.
but no fool is going to turn away 100 million dollars...and these teams cant ante up like the yankees or sox can.
if u dont put a ceiling on what they can add to their team....these teams will continually lose these players and baseball will continue to die in their city.

heard anything out of oakland outside of dallas braden last year?
ok...its dying there.


Bro it's been 3 years for the A's. Boo-F*cking-hoo I havent heard anything out of them recently.

How can you expect everybody to be good forever? Did you hear anything out of the Cubs or Mets this past year? (besides the dysfunctional chaos that surrounds them)

Sometimes teams are bad for a bit.

You're really whining that we havent heard from the A's for 3 years? If it's dying there it's not because of the Yankees. It's because Oakland fans must be sh*tty fans.

Why havent I heard from the Bills for 18 years? I thought salary cap was supposed to keep things like that from happening.

Guess not. Case closed.

Be_Easy_25
11-23-2010, 11:27 PM
why havent i heard from the pirates in that long?
why havent i heard from the royals since ever?
orioles in what 13 years?...and wasnt their playoff run tainted by roids?
blue jays?
cleveland?
the montreal expos/ washington nationals?
milwaukee outside of ONE trade for CC in which he pitched on 3 days rest for 2 weeks to mkae a playoff run......which...yup...u guessed it...THEY COULDNT AFFORD HIM...no CC wud have gotten 100 mil...they just couldnt afford him next to the yankees.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 11:33 PM
As for the Rays being "gutted"....they had Carl Crawford for 9 f*cking years. That's 3 more years than the Yankees had that superstar Alfonso Soriano locked down for (who, by the way, skipped town on NY for the lowly Nationals.)

I don't know how you can expect any more than 9 years from a guy. The fact is, the Rays wouldn't pay for Crawford if there was a salary cap or not. What it comes down to is the Rays are too cheap to increase their payroll. You think a cap would help them fix that problem? How? Crawford is still going to command a hefty salary from someone who is willing to spend. Maybe it's not the Yankees because they'd be capped out, and yeah Crawford's value would likely drop some from it. But you think it's gonna drop far enough for the Rays to open their pockets up and re-sign him? You must be delusional.

I already explained what would happen. He his value would sink around to where the teams who spend around 80 or 90 million could afford him. It's not gonna help the Marlins or the Rays or the Padres to implement a salary cap. These teams are spending 30-50 million a year. They can't afford to keep their players even with a salary cap.

They're f*cking cheap. I mean let's be honest, if there was a cap this year, Crawford would have gone to a team like the Braves. The Yankees would be capped out, along with other big markets, and his value would have fallen a few million, probably to around 12 million a year, and a team like the Braves would come along and just take him. The Rays wouldn't pay that sh*t.

Be_Easy_25
11-23-2010, 11:36 PM
As for the Rays being "gutted"....they had Carl Crawford for 9 f*cking years. That's 3 more years than the Yankees had that superstar Alfonso Soriano locked down for (who, by the way, skipped town on NY for the lowly Nationals.)

I don't know how you can expect any more than 9 years from a guy. The fact is, the Rays wouldn't pay for Crawford if there was a salary cap or not. What it comes down to is the Rays are too cheap to increase their payroll. You think a cap would help them fix that problem? How? Crawford is still going to command a hefty salary from someone who is willing to spend. Maybe it's not the Yankees because they'd be capped out, and yeah Crawford's value would likely drop some from it. But you think it's gonna drop far enough for the Rays to open their pockets up and re-sign him? You must be delusional.

I already explained what would happen. He his value would sink around to where the teams who spend around 80 or 90 million could afford him. It's not gonna help the Marlins or the Rays or the Padres to implement a salary cap. These teams are spending 30-50 million a year. They can't afford to keep their players even with a salary cap.

They're f*cking cheap. I mean let's be honest, if there was a cap this year, Crawford would have gone to a team like the Braves. The Yankees would be capped out, along with other big markets, and his value would have fallen a few million, probably to around 12 million a year, and a team like the Braves would come along and just take him. The Rays wouldn't pay that sh*t.

this is where u have to be reality.
they are losing more than carl crawford.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 11:37 PM
why havent i heard from the pirates in that long?
why havent i heard from the royals since ever?
orioles in what 13 years?...and wasnt their playoff run tainted by roids?
blue jays?
cleveland?
the montreal expos/ washington nationals?
milwaukee outside of ONE trade for CC in which he pitched on 3 days rest for 2 weeks to mkae a playoff run......which...yup...u guessed it...THEY COULDNT AFFORD HIM...no CC wud have gotten 100 mil...they just couldnt afford him next to the yankees.

We're going in circles bro.

Why havent I heard from the Bills or the Browns or the Lions in forever?

Why havent I heard from the Texans when they first came in the league. MLB teams don't have that problem. The Rays, Astros, D'Backs, and Marlins have all made the WS in their short franchise history.

Why haven't the Texans even made the playoffs?

Why have the Panthers never had back to back winning seasons?


Why hasn't the salary cap fixed these problems? Im not moving forward in this discussion until you explain to me why the salary cap in the NFL hasn't done a better job. Because right now with the evidence I see salary cap has done nothing to help the NFL's bad teams. Why would MLB need it?

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 11:40 PM
this is where u have to be reality.
they are losing more than carl crawford.

That's because they're cheap. It doesn't have to do with salary cap it has to do with salary floor.

Rays management is turning a profit by having such a small payroll and that's all they care about. It's not about winning. It's about running a business.

For the Yankees it's about winning. They have an owner who wants to win.


Salary floor would go miles and miles further than any salary cap would. The problem is not the Yankees spending, it's the lack of other teams spending. These teams have money and they are refusing to spend it. Don't think they just are incapable of affording these players. It's a managerial choice so they can turn a bigger profit margin.

Be_Easy_25
11-23-2010, 11:46 PM
last post and im done.
ur confusing bad front offices of the NFL with salary cap making it difficult to compete.
the bills have made a ton of crappy decisions/ tried to put newspaper over the piss big daddy style...bad fo.
lions...bad FO...theyre finally beginning to look like something...ntotheir fault barry left when he was still amazing.
the browns werent a franchise for like 6 or 7 years....then they drafted tim couch....again bad FO moves...putting newspaper over piss.

its not about teams not being able to get good in baseball.
i never said they couldnt....im not discounting the As run....I'm not saying the yankees are a lock to win it all ever year...but they are a lock to be in it every year.

it's not about loyalty or pledging allegiance to teams....its about decent teams in small markets getting broken up from the same thing every time.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 11:48 PM
It seriously doesn't blow your mind that the 4 newest teams in the MLB have all been to the WS with less than 20 years under their existence and you're in here arguing these guys don't have a chance?

You don't see something seriously wrong with those assumptions?

5 WS appearances and 3 championships from the 4 teams who entered the league in 1993, 1993, 1998, and 1998 respectively.


How much more parity can you really ask for?

Be_Easy_25
11-23-2010, 11:54 PM
It seriously doesn't blow your mind that the 4 newest teams in the MLB have all been to the WS with less than 20 years under their existence and you're in here arguing these guys don't have a chance?

You don't see something seriously wrong with those assumptions?

5 WS appearances and 3 championships from the 4 teams who entered the league in 1993, 1993, 1998, and 1998 respectively.


How much more parity can you really ask for?

marlins broken up how again?
twice right?

why did the d-backs fail?
brb colangelo in debt.

we've discussed the rays.

lol, rockies caught lightening in a bottle.


again.
ill ask u.
who is making the super bowl this year?
and then who is making the world series next year?
which bet are u more confident in?

that requires a level of honesty which u probably wont give.
but lol anyway....im off for a late night subway run.
pz.

bbacn123
11-23-2010, 11:56 PM
last post and im done.
ur confusing bad front offices of the NFL with salary cap making it difficult to compete.
the bills have made a ton of crappy decisions/ tried to put newspaper over the piss big daddy style...bad fo.
lions...bad FO...theyre finally beginning to look like something...ntotheir fault barry left when he was still amazing.
the browns werent a franchise for like 6 or 7 years....then they drafted tim couch....again bad FO moves...putting newspaper over piss.

its not about teams not being able to get good in baseball.
i never said they couldnt....im not discounting the As run....I'm not saying the yankees are a lock to win it all ever year...but they are a lock to be in it every year.

it's not about loyalty or pledging allegiance to teams....its about decent teams in small markets getting broken up from the same thing every time.


That's sh*tty management. You dont honestly think these teams are incapable of signing players do you? If you do you seriously need to go in depth a little more. The management of these organizations only care about profit margin. That's why the Rays, and the A's, and everyone else you want to think of isn't spending. The Pirates are turning a profit every season and they dont give a damn that they finish last.


Im gonna quote part of an article for you. I bolded the especially important parts.


A case in point is the Atlanta Braves. For the better part of 25 years from the '60s to the late 80's the Braves were perennially one of the worst franchises in baseball. Atlanta was not exactly a large market team; Ted Turner turned it into one. Turner increased team recognition through the use of the media by broadcasting games across the country.

While not necessarily profitable to begin with, it paid off over time. In the early '90s and for 15 plus seasons the Braves were one of the best teams in baseball. They spent the money to keep their players there and continued to have success because of it.

Their continued success drew more fans to the stadium as well increasing their national following. Revenue generated from merchandise and other avenues kept the team solvent and helped finance the team to continue success.

This is a model that could be used by teams such as the Pirates or Royals. If you spend the money to put a competitive team on the field, it may mean a lower profit margin to begin with. The dividends will come, it just might take a little time.


Right now, the Royals and Pirates are fine squeezing out their profit margin as is. It has nothing to do with not being able to go after players and it has everything to do with owners not willing to pay to make the team better and suffer initial losses when the team is profitable.

That's it. That's the story. Take it or leave it but the Yankees "swooping in" and keeping these teams from signing players is a crock of sh*t. It's their own team owners that are keeping them from signing players.

Be_Easy_25
11-23-2010, 11:57 PM
why did the d-backs fail?
brb colangelo in debt.

edit and thats for buying players.

ok i rly rly am off this time.

bbacn123
11-24-2010, 12:05 AM
who is making the super bowl this year?
and then who is making the world series next year?
which bet are u more confident in?.

I'd be more comfortable with my SB pick because upsets are far less common in the NFL.

Even the O's have been known to sweep the Yankees for 3 straight games. In the NFL you have teams who will only lose 2 or 3 games all season.

Any smart person would be more confident with their SB pick.

Be_Easy_25
11-24-2010, 12:48 AM
i didnt say in theory.

i said actually pick.
then tell me which bet sounds more appealing

JaxBrah
11-24-2010, 01:48 AM
MLB has more parity than any other sport

Haters just wanna hate.

Is that why the yankees have won 27 championships?

The mlb is terrible for many reasons, one being the lack of salary caps. To say the mlb has more parity than the nfl is laughable. The playoff turnover rate from year to year is pretty remarkable in the nfl. Any ****ty team can become superbowl champs the very next season.

JaxBrah
11-24-2010, 02:05 AM
The giants will fall right back to mediocrity in the next season or two, as with the rays.

Living in baltimore ive watched the orioles try to spend money only to have the players sign with the yankees simply because they would pay them more. Result is 13 straight losing seasons. The orioles have absolutely no hope whatsoever with competing against the yankees and red sox unless they get incredibly lucky in the draft. And even then, after a few seasons, the team is gutted and its back to losing. The rays had an incredible series of drafts which made them good for a few seasons, now they cant afford it because other teams can pay theirs players 30% more. Itll be a long time before they are contenders in the al east again. Whereas, the bucs were horrid last year, and are now 7-3 and in first place.

IraHays
11-24-2010, 05:57 AM
The Rays made $8million last year. Owner says he's going to cut payroll by $30 million. Sense, none. Can't blame that on no salary cap.

PitBillSoxFan
11-24-2010, 06:17 AM
No, but the Yankees are a playoff team no matter what every single season(as well as Boston usually)

Money buys Rings, end of story.

Small market rarely every competes well against large market.

The Yankees went 10 years and like $2B between World Series wins.

How the hell can you argue that? As soon as their payroll exploded they STOPPED winning rings. When they were a dynasty in the mid-late 90s, they did it without big name FAs.

Ugh.

PitBillSoxFan
11-24-2010, 06:22 AM
Is that why the yankees have won 27 championships?
The mlb is terrible for many reasons, one being the lack of salary caps. To say the mlb has more parity than the nfl is laughable. The playoff turnover rate from year to year is pretty remarkable in the nfl. Any ****ty team can become superbowl champs the very next season.

You can't be this stupid, can you? You're saying that because the Yankees won like 15 rings in 20 years during the 30s and 40s, that has to do with baseball now?

Food for thought: The Cardinals, Marlins, DBacks, White Sox and Yankees have won the same number of World Series since 2001. But, erm....those damn Yankees keep winning rings!!

jkeithc82
11-24-2010, 06:25 AM
Why haven't the Texans even made the playoffs?

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/GaryKubiak020210.jpg

thegenerel
11-24-2010, 06:37 AM
literally every post so far has been homerism. the yankee fans say no cap, the small market fans say there must be one.

thegenerel
11-24-2010, 06:39 AM
Right now, the Royals and Pirates are fine squeezing out their profit margin as is. It has nothing to do with not being able to go after players and it has everything to do with owners not willing to pay to make the team better and suffer initial losses when the team is profitable.

That's it. That's the story. Take it or leave it but the Yankees "swooping in" and keeping these teams from signing players is a crock of sh*t. It's their own team owners that are keeping them from signing players.

the pirates make about 10-20M in profit each season. if reinvested in player salary, how many more wins would that produce?

bbacn123
11-24-2010, 10:05 AM
literally every post so far has been homerism. the yankee fans say no cap, the small market fans say there must be one.

brb being the only fan in here who has seen his team both at the top of payroll and now in the middle of payroll.

My opinion > everyone else

bbacn123
11-24-2010, 10:08 AM
the pirates make about 10-20M in profit each season. if reinvested in player salary, how many more wins would that produce?

I doubt you read all my posts in here and that's ok, but like I said before, you'd have to take an initial loss for a few years. Ted Turner did it, and in the long run it came back very profitable.

You have to spend money to make money, and yes there's obviously risk in that. Or you can be happy with a slim profit margin and a terrible team. The Pirates owner is choosing a slim profit margin and sh*tty team. The Yankees aren't forcing them into it.

bbacn123
11-24-2010, 10:13 AM
i didnt say in theory.

i said actually pick.
then tell me which bet sounds more appealing

Ok. I'd be more comfortable saying the Eagles will win the SB than any one team in the MLB. I guess I'd have to say the Phillies are still the favorite in the MLB (in b4 youre mad I dont think the Yankees are the favorite). I'd be more confident the Eagles win the SB.

All I did was just put the theory into team names here. Like I said Im gonna feel more comfortable in an NFL prediction every year.

bbacn123
11-24-2010, 10:25 AM
Is that why the yankees have won 27 championships?

The mlb is terrible for many reasons, one being the lack of salary caps. To say the mlb has more parity than the nfl is laughable. The playoff turnover rate from year to year is pretty remarkable in the nfl. Any ****ty team can become superbowl champs the very next season.

You do know the Yankees won the bulk of their championships when there was few teams in the MLB

In fact 20 of their championships were won with only 16 or less teams in the league.


But Im sure you never stopped to consider these things.




And you said you're an Orioles fan? Well then I have little sympathy for you. You spend just as much as the Braves do (or very close to it) and you're blaming your problems on the Yankees. Sorry, but I too have a New York team in my division that over spends on players and a Phillies team that buys players like the Red Sox. I really don't feel bad for you. You have every opportunity to be successful with the payroll you have but your front office makes mistakes.

Can you make mistakes and be ok like the Yankees? no. Neither can the Braves. But are you hopeless? GTFO. If your FO wasn't so incompetent you'd be able to make the playoffs.

But keep pointing the finger at someone else for your problems and you can have a happy existence losing every season instead of locating the real problem.

E-Go
11-24-2010, 10:26 AM
As for the Rays being "gutted"....they had Carl Crawford for 9 f*cking years. That's 3 more years than the Yankees had that superstar Alfonso Soriano locked down for (who, by the way, skipped town on NY for the lowly Nationals.)

I don't know how you can expect any more than 9 years from a guy. The fact is, the Rays wouldn't pay for Crawford if there was a salary cap or not. What it comes down to is the Rays are too cheap to increase their payroll. You think a cap would help them fix that problem? How? Crawford is still going to command a hefty salary from someone who is willing to spend. Maybe it's not the Yankees because they'd be capped out, and yeah Crawford's value would likely drop some from it. But you think it's gonna drop far enough for the Rays to open their pockets up and re-sign him? You must be delusional.

I already explained what would happen. He his value would sink around to where the teams who spend around 80 or 90 million could afford him. It's not gonna help the Marlins or the Rays or the Padres to implement a salary cap. These teams are spending 30-50 million a year. They can't afford to keep their players even with a salary cap.

They're f*cking cheap. I mean let's be honest, if there was a cap this year, Crawford would have gone to a team like the Braves. The Yankees would be capped out, along with other big markets, and his value would have fallen a few million, probably to around 12 million a year, and a team like the Braves would come along and just take him. The Rays wouldn't pay that sh*t.

First off, Soriano was traded to Texas and then traded to Washington. He then signed a long term contract with Chicago. He didn't leave NY for Washington.

Also, there is a difference between being cheap and not having the money to sign players. Donald Sterling (LA Clippers) is cheap. Tampa can't afford to sign Crawford to a deal he would get in a larger market like NY, LA, Chicago and the like.

bbacn123
11-24-2010, 10:37 AM
Also, there is a difference between being cheap and not having the money to sign players. Donald Sterling (LA Clippers) is cheap. Tampa can't afford to sign Crawford to a deal he would get in a larger market like NY, LA, Chicago and the like.

Whatever about Soriano. He's pretty irrelevant in my rambling in here anyway.


As for TB, what are they willing to even pay Crawford? How big of a cap would we have to place on the MLB in order for them to be able to sign him? Hell we'd probably have to restrict a good 20 teams just so the cheap ass Rays could re-sign him.

You think capping just the Yankees would let TB keep Crawford? lol no. He would fall to a team like the Twins, or the Braves, or the Rockies. Those mid-level teams who actually spend.

We'd seriously have to set the cap at like 70M in order for TB, Pitt, Oak, and SD to retain their players every year because it's not a matter of the Yankees swooping in and taking them it's a matter of them being too cheap to pay anyone more than 4 or 5 mil a year.

Im just gonna keep quoting the perfect case study


A case in point is the Atlanta Braves. For the better part of 25 years from the '60s to the late 80's the Braves were perennially one of the worst franchises in baseball. Atlanta was not exactly a large market team; Ted Turner turned it into one. Turner increased team recognition through the use of the media by broadcasting games across the country.

While not necessarily profitable to begin with, it paid off over time. In the early '90s and for 15 plus seasons the Braves were one of the best teams in baseball. They spent the money to keep their players there and continued to have success because of it.

Their continued success drew more fans to the stadium as well increasing their national following. Revenue generated from merchandise and other avenues kept the team solvent and helped finance the team to continue success.

This is a model that could be used by teams such as the Pirates or Royals. If you spend the money to put a competitive team on the field, it may mean a lower profit margin to begin with. The dividends will come, it just might take a little time.


Don't tell me bad teams cant be good. That's complete and utter bullsh*t. They are not helpless. They just need an owner who cares, who is willing to take an initial hit for a chance to see more profits in the long run.

bbacn123
11-24-2010, 10:41 AM
What I want to know is what is stopping the Pirates and Royals from doing what the Braves did?

But none of you can answer this question for me because you're all too busy whining about a salary cap which would do nothing anyway.

Beasly3333
11-24-2010, 12:10 PM
Personally i would be ok if instead of a salary cap, teams should be allowed to Cut 1 player each season w/o having to pay them for their entire contract. For instance: if someone is signed to a 3yr 75 million dollar contract (3yr at 25mil a season) and they suck after 2 season, a team should be able to cut them and only pay for the 2 years not the total amount of his contract. I think it would allow small/mid market teams to go out and maybe take the chance and spend some bigger bucks on a star player w/o the full risk of being ****ed if the person sucks and tying up your payroll for a long time.

I know as a working class person i wouldn't feel too sorry if someone signed a long deal for millions, sucked and got cut loose after a few seasons. boo hoo, they made millions and will probably end up getting picked up by another team and get paid a few mil anyways.

This idea is terrible. Big market teams would take advantage more than the small market teams.

BRB Yankees cut Burnett and use that salary to sign someone better
BRB Cubs cut Soriano and use the money to sign Crawford instead

E-Go
11-24-2010, 12:18 PM
Whatever about Soriano. He's pretty irrelevant in my rambling in here anyway.


As for TB, what are they willing to even pay Crawford? How big of a cap would we have to place on the MLB in order for them to be able to sign him? Hell we'd probably have to restrict a good 20 teams just so the cheap ass Rays could re-sign him.

You think capping just the Yankees would let TB keep Crawford? lol no. He would fall to a team like the Twins, or the Braves, or the Rockies. Those mid-level teams who actually spend.

We'd seriously have to set the cap at like 70M in order for TB, Pitt, Oak, and SD to retain their players every year because it's not a matter of the Yankees swooping in and taking them it's a matter of them being too cheap to pay anyone more than 4 or 5 mil a year.

Im just gonna keep quoting the perfect case study




Don't tell me bad teams cant be good. That's complete and utter bullsh*t. They are not helpless. They just need an owner who cares, who is willing to take an initial hit for a chance to see more profits in the long run.


I agree, there needs to be min and max payroll cap. MLB needs to figure out how to draw more fans into the small markets so they can increase payroll. Its sad that TB had so little sell outs last year when they were a top 5 team. A Max cap doesn't benefit Pitt and KC, it benefits St Louis and Atlanta, mid markets.

thefullmonte
11-24-2010, 12:26 PM
bbcan is ****ing ya'll up in this thread. It's really too bad that some of you aren't smart enough to realize it though. For some reason baseball economics makes ya'll all go full-retard and siht.

EDIT: and it STILL baffles me that certain people are unable to understand that certain teams are in the financial spot they are because of the choices THEY have made.

Jyeatbvg
11-24-2010, 01:48 PM
Lets be real here...

I don't give two ****s about the parity talk that's going on in this thread, but the fact that some teams can spend $100M in one season while others can't just speaks "retard" in every sense. There would still be parity if MLB did have salary cap so what's against having it?

evilsteve02
11-24-2010, 01:54 PM
This idea is terrible. Big market teams would take advantage more than the small market teams.

BRB Yankees cut Burnett and use that salary to sign someone better
BRB Cubs cut Soriano and use the money to sign Crawford instead

maybe ...but it also allows small/mid market teams to get rid of bad contracts. Also allows small/mid market teams to actually keep up and overpay like the yankees, even if it is for a year or 2 of their service...they can still sign those players.

evilsteve02
11-24-2010, 01:55 PM
Lets be real here...

I don't give two ****s about the parity talk that's going on in this thread, but the fact that some teams can spend $100M in one season while others can't just speaks "retard" in every sense. There would still be parity if MLB did have salary cap so what's against having it?

agree'd.

GetBigyo
11-24-2010, 01:58 PM
Lets be real here...

I don't give two ****s about the parity talk that's going on in this thread, but the fact that some teams can spend $100M in one season while others can't just speaks "retard" in every sense. There would still be parity if MLB did have salary cap so what's against having it?
So you want a salary floor then?

I don't care for the people who argue a salary cap but if your going to argue for one then at least argue for a salary floor too. Like bacon and others have already said....Implementing a cap is only going level out mid market teams like the Braves, Cardinals, etc. to teams like the Yankees and Red Sox. Your still going to have the ****ty owners in Pittsburgh and Florida spending nothing.

Jyeatbvg
11-24-2010, 02:07 PM
So you want a salary floor then?

I don't care for the people who argue a salary cap but if your going to argue for one then at least argue for a salary floor too. Like bacon and others have already said....Implementing a cap is only going level out mid market teams like the Braves, Cardinals, etc. to teams like the Yankees and Red Sox. Your still going to have the ****ty owners in Pittsburgh and Florida spending nothing.

Sure, implement a floor and a ceiling then, as long as all teams have to spend the same amount. The only reason why Selig hasn't made changes yet is because the MLB makes most of its money off the teams that spend the most.

thefullmonte
11-24-2010, 06:03 PM
So you want a salary floor then?

I don't care for the people who argue a salary cap but if your going to argue for one then at least argue for a salary floor too. Like bacon and others have already said....Implementing a cap is only going level out mid market teams like the Braves, Cardinals, etc. to teams like the Yankees and Red Sox. Your still going to have the ****ty owners in Pittsburgh and Florida spending nothing.


Sure, implement a floor and a ceiling then, as long as all teams have to spend the same amount. The only reason why Selig hasn't made changes yet is because the MLB makes most of its money off the teams that spend the most.


Which is ultimately rendered moot by the number of different teams winning the WS every year.

PitBillSoxFan
11-24-2010, 08:09 PM
Lets be real here...

I don't give two ****s about the parity talk that's going on in this thread, but the fact that some teams can spend $100M in one season while others can't just speaks "retard" in every sense. There would still be parity if MLB did have salary cap so what's against having it?

wait wait wait wait

What teams "can't" spend $100M? Because the owners had to make a choice between getting a free agent of his kids eating that week?

Net worth of the pirates owner: 1.5 BILLION
Padres: 800M
Royals: 2.8 BILLION

So yea the Royals could buy any free agent at anytime they wanted to. They choose not to.