- 2,660
- 738
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
Salary caps usually just screw the players... See NFL.
Apparantly, Brewers owner is upset and thinks there needs to be a Salaray Cap.
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by fede dpt,
- Start date
- 6,597
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2001
Yankees MAKE MORE MONEY.......... therefore they should be able to spend as much as they want with THEIR money.
And the United States has more money than Fiji... you have a bigger market, obviously you're going to make more money genius. Your argument is basically,"the teams who happen to reside in the largest cities deserve to win all the titles because they're the biggest cities". Seriously, are you thatsimple a human being?
Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- 61,462
- 23,196
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
exactly and come 2010 in the nba, owners are gonna wish there wasnt a salary cap
- 6,823
- 10
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
And the United States has more money than Fiji... you have a bigger market, obviously you're going to make more money genius. Your argument is basically, "the teams who happen to reside in the largest cities deserve to win all the titles because they're the biggest cities". Seriously, are you that simple a human being?
- 6,823
- 10
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
"George was larger than life," said Ray. "Most people can't sustain that. They have moments of grandeur, maybe, but are not true forces of nature. George was relentless about building a winner. Less than one hour after the Yankees lost in the first round to the Mariners in 1995, he was on the phone with me and said, 'Meet me tomorrow morning with Doc Gooden.' Most guys feel sorry for themselves that soon after a defeat. George was already in action."
George FTW!!!
God bless this man on Christmas day.
- 1,570
- 13
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
Originally Posted by Fede DPT
I can only imagine how much money the Yankees would keep in their pocket if their was a cap.
We would probably start making players in a lab.
NY run this.
darthska
Staff member
- 44,435
- 28,041
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
- 25,116
- 13,109
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
Same people on here saying others are crying were the first people to blame a loss on bugs
And some (not all) of them are the same fans that scream about Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder snatching up superstars every time they hit the NFLmarket...
lakersmets49ers
Banned
- 1,507
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2007
a salary cap would be rewarding the jeffery lorias and the carl polads of the leauge. notoriously cheap owners who haven't put a full effort to winning.they would now have an excuse to not pay their players. believe it or not, theres owners in the league who got more money then steinbrener but these ownersshoes to be tightwads with their money.
in small market citys where the baseball team is the only team in town or theres only 2 professional sports teams in town, theres so much potential for thesesmall market teams. if they put a winning product on the field, there bound to become the number 1 hot ticket in town because theres nothing else to do in thatcity. also there merchandise sales will be consistent if they spend the money to keep their players. if you have a face of the franchise player, you'llsell jerseys and t shirts etc. however most mlb teams don't keep their players and it shows a sign of lack of commitment to winning. this is the real worldand your not going to get something for nothing, you need to spend money to make money, if you invest in your product and the team you paid for, sure it mighthit tough short term but the long term results will be rewarding because most fans aren't stupid. if the effort is there to win and ownership makes somesort of effort to establish a relationship with fans, season ticket holders, fans will come to the games. someone like jeffery loria shouldn't benifit froma salary cap which would allow him to give minimal effort without being scrutinized for it.
in small market citys where the baseball team is the only team in town or theres only 2 professional sports teams in town, theres so much potential for thesesmall market teams. if they put a winning product on the field, there bound to become the number 1 hot ticket in town because theres nothing else to do in thatcity. also there merchandise sales will be consistent if they spend the money to keep their players. if you have a face of the franchise player, you'llsell jerseys and t shirts etc. however most mlb teams don't keep their players and it shows a sign of lack of commitment to winning. this is the real worldand your not going to get something for nothing, you need to spend money to make money, if you invest in your product and the team you paid for, sure it mighthit tough short term but the long term results will be rewarding because most fans aren't stupid. if the effort is there to win and ownership makes somesort of effort to establish a relationship with fans, season ticket holders, fans will come to the games. someone like jeffery loria shouldn't benifit froma salary cap which would allow him to give minimal effort without being scrutinized for it.
- 25,116
- 13,109
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- 13,094
- 2,121
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2001
The Yanks were guaranteed a playoff spot in 08? Hmmmm....
Conversely, were the Brewers and Rays NOT supposed to be in the post-season because they had low payrolls and "one star"?
How about the Indians, Rockies, and D-backs in 07?
Twins, Padres, and Cards in 06?
Marlins?
As far as being the favorite to win it, what happened to Seattle or the Yankees in past playoffs? Teams with the best record or were overall favorites goinginto the playoffs only to LOSE?
Bold: YES. Cuz there is nothing worse than a guy who's a billionaire that refuses to spend/share his money. To ME, it's his obligation to share thewealth that us common folk help him to get.
Underline: I'd debate that if I were able to find some stats to support me. I don't think the NFL is growing as rapidly as you think/say. Imo, the NFLhas hit it's ceiling. There's no more room for expansion. Why do you think they are trying to cross-over to Europe?
Italics: Parity IS good for sports. But you guys are acting like there still isn't parity after the top tier teams (the Yanks and Sawx). There will ALWAYSbe a big dog that people chase after. The NBA has a cap, yet the Lakers and Celtics (going into this season) were the odds-on favorites. This parity that youspeak of.... it's not like every team in the NBA came into the 08-09 season saying that they have a chance to win it all.
For the most part, yes... I agree with this. If an owner puts together a winning franchise, people will show up! That's the bottom line. Whydo you think the Yankees spend the money they do on free agents? Cuz they have to justify those $2500 seats. And they can charge $2500 a seat cuz.... PEOPLESHOW UP. And they show up cuz.... there's a great product to see. And there's a great product to see cuz.... the owners spend the money to get qualityplayers. And the owners get that money to spend from.... the people that pay and show up. See the cycle?
Only Dolan (Knicks owner) can get away with charging exorbitant prices and still have people show up to see a poor/inferior product.
Go back to the cycle I just mentioned.
If the fans in Detroit stop showing up for Lions games, that sends a message to ownership and to the NFL that this product is NOT worthy of support.Eventually, ownership gets booted or the team gets relocated.
The reason that the Marlins are still in business is because they have won 2 chips in the past few years. Once they go 5-10 years w/o winning a chip andattendance is still as horrible as it is, they will no doubt be sold.
That's the way it should be in all sports.
darthska
Staff member
- 44,435
- 28,041
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
- 2,382
- 254
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- 2,865
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
thank you mjd77 from one milwaukeeian to another i couldnt agree with you anymore
They do need a salary cap ASAP and it is a disgrace what the Yankee's are doing to baseball
-Tyler
- 13,094
- 2,121
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2001
The Yanks were guaranteed a playoff spot in 08? Hmmmm....
Conversely, were the Brewers and Rays NOT supposed to be in the post-season because they had low payrolls and "one star"?
How about the Indians, Rockies, and D-backs in 07?
Twins, Padres, and Cards in 06?
Marlins?
As far as being the favorite to win it, what happened to Seattle or the Yankees in past playoffs? Teams with the best record or were overall favorites going into the playoffs only to LOSE?
Not 'guaranteed a playoff spot' as in 'If you spend a ton of money on your roster, you are going to LITERALLY be guaranteed a playoff spot.'
I mean... essentially, you'll at least win your division or be the Wild Card consistently if you have a stacked roster. And by providing individual examples of stacked rosters not making the playoffs in single years, you're not disproving my point.
If you have a stacked, expensive roster year in and year out, the years you fail to make the playoffs with a stacked, expensive roster will be few.
Dog, you went from "you can BACICALLY guarantee a playoff berth" to "you'll at least win your division or be the Wild Cardconsistently if you have a stacked roster".
To you, it's the same thing. To me, it's not. Main difference is the use of "basically" and "at least". Especially with theemphasis on "basically".
Anyhow, it kills me that people are up in arms over this. This is the thing that irks me about sports. If this were YOUR favorite team, I can almost guaranteethat you'd be ecstatic. But because it's the opponent, all of a sudden "it's not fair".
Dudes hate Kobe, Brady, and A-Rod until they are on YOUR team hitting/throwing a game-winner. Sports always dampens objectivity for some reason...
I agree that it SEEMS unfair. But I'd be more on your side if the Yanks were winning it EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Or if NO small-market teams made the playoffs atall.
- 25,116
- 13,109
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
Or if NO small-market teams made the playoffs at all.
But... What small market team sustains a playoff caliber level of play over the course of several years?
Just going off the ones you mentioned in a previous post...
Indians? Nope. Rockies? Nope. Diamondbacks? Nope. Padres? Nope... The Twins and Cardinals are about the closest thing in recent memory...
That goes back to my whole argument... Yes, small market teams will be competitive. But no, they won't sustain a high level of competitiveness over thecourse of more than a couple of years... They won't make the playoffs 15 straight years like the Yankees. They won't win 2 World Series championshipsin 3 years like the Red Sox, and be primed for more deep playoff runs going forward after that... It just doesn't happen. In this current system, it damnnear can't happen. And that's the point...
Teams like the Cubs, Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox will be in the thick of things damn near EVERY SINGLE YEAR because even when they're bad, they can run outthe next offseason and spend loads of money to solve the problem. And the drafting/international signing systems leans heavily in big market teams' favoras well. They wouldn't have to worry about not being able to draft a kid because Boras will demand such insane money for them to go anywhere aside from apremier market. The Yanks and Sox can go out and offer $75 million or whatever it was just to NEGOTIATE with Daisuke Matsuzaka, then throw another huge amountof money to sign him... The Twins or Rays can't do that... When they're bad, they're going to be bad until they can completely rebuild themselveswithout throwing money at the problem. And that takes substantially longer. And it's substantially more difficult to do...
That, in itself, is what makes this so unfair to me... In the NFL and NBA, the Lions, Cardinals, and Clippers have no excuses. They're working onrelatively the same budget as every other team in the league. They're operating under a strict set of rules that SHOULD allow them to rebuild and becompetitive quickly... Them not doing it is entirely on their own accord. It's not because they're operating under a system that tilts itself heavilyin favor of big market, big revenue franchises...
And I do agree with you, I'd love it if my team spent money like the Yankees, but that doesn't mean I still wouldn't feel it makes for an unevenplaying field... I'd love for Tom Hicks to be able/willing to maintain a $100 million payroll... I'd love for my team to be able to throw whateveramount of money at whatever player, and not have to suffer the consequences of giving out a bad contract... But my team can't do that. They've triedit, and they just flat out can't do it...The NBA has a cap, yet the Lakers and Celtics (going into this season) were the odds-on favorites.
But the Lakers and Celtics have been flat out bad or fringy playoff teams as recently as 3 years ago... Neither of those teams solved theirproblems by throwing insane amount of money at them... They worked under the same rules as every other team in the league and they put together rosters thatcould win championships without any type of distinct advantages (aside from opposing GMs makingtrades...) given to them by the system they'reworking under...
They can't go sign every good player available because they're the Lakers or Celtics. They don't have superstar draft talents falling to thembecause their agents are demanding outrageous money. They didn't have the ability to go overseas and offer a player more money than any other team in theleague could even think about...
To me, it's entirely different, and I'm not sure how you argue that it's even remotely the same thing...
darthska
Staff member
- 44,435
- 28,041
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Dudes hate Kobe until he's on their team?
You know good and well that ain't true with me.
I'm not that guy.
Look, I know that L.A. is a major market, and that if there was no salary cap in the NBA, it would greatly benefit my team; we're in a major market, so ifeveryone was allowed to spend endlessly and dependent on their revenue, we'd be suiting up Josh Smith, Timmy D, Kobe, Yao, and Roy every night (disclaimer,in light of your previous response: I don't mean that literally. But I do mean to say that we would have one of the more stacked rosters in the leagueEVERY single year if the NBA had no cap). But even with that knowledge, I still support a cap; even though no cap in the NBA would benefit my Lakers everyyear, I don't want it.
You know good and well that ain't true with me.
Look, I know that L.A. is a major market, and that if there was no salary cap in the NBA, it would greatly benefit my team; we're in a major market, so ifeveryone was allowed to spend endlessly and dependent on their revenue, we'd be suiting up Josh Smith, Timmy D, Kobe, Yao, and Roy every night (disclaimer,in light of your previous response: I don't mean that literally. But I do mean to say that we would have one of the more stacked rosters in the leagueEVERY single year if the NBA had no cap). But even with that knowledge, I still support a cap; even though no cap in the NBA would benefit my Lakers everyyear, I don't want it.
- 6,597
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2001
As far as being the favorite to win it, what happened to Seattle or the Yankees in past playoffs? Teams with the best record or were overall favorites going into the playoffs only to LOSE?
You honestly don't believe there's a positive correlation between payroll and winning percentage?You're citing these anomalies that tend to take place while ignoring thevast majority of happenings the last 20 years of baseball and saying that's good enough for weaker markets.
Holy hell -that's like somebody saying, "Barrack Obama is the president, so obviously there's no racism in the United States and any black personis capable of becoming the president if they put their minds to it.. stop complaining black people!". Only difference is, Obama becoming president DOESshow progress in this sense, while a small-market team putting together a contender is a statistical-anamoly, period.
I'm not even in here to say i think a salary cap is a great thing for baseball - but to act like teams like the Yankees aren't at a huge advantage onthe field due to a non-capped sport is ridiculous.
- 3,023
- 123
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
Originally Posted by yungmatt
Hes mad
dacomeup
Supporter
- 25,635
- 35,537
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
I think that this COULD be a good idea. My question though is how in the hell could this be possible with baseball having the minor leagues also?
- 2,260
- 29
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
I see both sides....owners benefit from other major market success, but also that was put in place to give minor markets a chance.......I think their needs tobe a cap, to just make the playing field fair....
very few teams sell out every game like the yankee's (i can see the cyclical argument already, great players=more fans, more fans money=more opportunitiesto buy great players, etc etc) and charge ridiculous prices....Baseball is unlike most sports, because in other sports if a player wants to join an amazingteam but they have a cap, he has to take the cut....
its just unfair for one team to be able to spend nearly a billion dollars over 5 years, while some teams cant afford 50 mill...
very few teams sell out every game like the yankee's (i can see the cyclical argument already, great players=more fans, more fans money=more opportunitiesto buy great players, etc etc) and charge ridiculous prices....Baseball is unlike most sports, because in other sports if a player wants to join an amazingteam but they have a cap, he has to take the cut....
its just unfair for one team to be able to spend nearly a billion dollars over 5 years, while some teams cant afford 50 mill...
tmukg21
Banned
- 4,017
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
As a Yankee fan, gotta rub it in a little
all from Darren Rovell's sports blog
What The Yankees Could Buy With $423.5 Million (C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira)
(only one of course)
ESPN is reporting that the New York Yankees have signed free agent first baseman Mark Teixeira. Add up Teixeira's contract with the offseason signings ofA.J. Burnett and C.C. Sabathia and you have $423.5 million in guaranteed contracts. Pretty amazing, huh?
Sure, the Yankees have contracts that come off the books, but that's not the reason why the Yankees cando this. The reason the Yankees can do this is because their owners, the Steinbrenners, have no other primary business besides the Yankees.
What am I talking about? Think about all the other owners who have gotten pounded this year in the sector ofthe economy that they might still have their money in.
Think about the New York Mets, whose owners not onlylost money from the Madoff mess, but are in the real estate investment business. So too is Theodore Lerner, the owner of the WashingtonNationals, who were hoping to land Teixeira. The Chicago Cubs are being sold by an entity that is bankrupt.
Go down the list and you can see that there's a lot of people that lost money this year in otherbusinesses. I have no idea where the Yankees are investing their personal money, but the bottom line is that their business is only the New York Yankees.
What does that mean? It means that as long as the Steinbrenners believe that the business of the Yankees willbe good, they are not as affected as the others are. Will people still go to games? If not, will they watch the YES Network. It's a pretty simpleequation.
Here's a quote from an owner: "One of the challenges I have is buying into a falling market,"he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "When you buy into a rising market, you can't move fast enough. The challenge here is that, look, anyinvestment you made in 2008 on Wall Street, 12 months ago, 12 weeks ago, 12 days ago, even 12 hours ago, you are down. We have to be careful with what is goingon here."
That owner was Mark Attanasio. He is the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers. He gave up C.C. Sabathia. And youhave to believe that some of that has to do with the fact that he's an investment banker. Hank and Hal Steinbrenner are not.
What The Yankees Could Buy With $423.5 Million (C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira)
(only one of course)
- 100 percent of Freddie Mac
- 82 percent of Churchill Downs
- 47 percent of New York Times (they could easily buy the Sports section!)
- 38 percent of Under Armour
- 37 percent of Foot Locker
- 23 percent of General Motors
- 14 percent of Burger King
- 8 percent of Ford
- 6 percent of Starbucks
- 2 percent of eBay
ESPN is reporting that the New York Yankees have signed free agent first baseman Mark Teixeira. Add up Teixeira's contract with the offseason signings ofA.J. Burnett and C.C. Sabathia and you have $423.5 million in guaranteed contracts. Pretty amazing, huh?
Sure, the Yankees have contracts that come off the books, but that's not the reason why the Yankees cando this. The reason the Yankees can do this is because their owners, the Steinbrenners, have no other primary business besides the Yankees.
What am I talking about? Think about all the other owners who have gotten pounded this year in the sector ofthe economy that they might still have their money in.
Think about the New York Mets, whose owners not onlylost money from the Madoff mess, but are in the real estate investment business. So too is Theodore Lerner, the owner of the WashingtonNationals, who were hoping to land Teixeira. The Chicago Cubs are being sold by an entity that is bankrupt.
Go down the list and you can see that there's a lot of people that lost money this year in otherbusinesses. I have no idea where the Yankees are investing their personal money, but the bottom line is that their business is only the New York Yankees.
What does that mean? It means that as long as the Steinbrenners believe that the business of the Yankees willbe good, they are not as affected as the others are. Will people still go to games? If not, will they watch the YES Network. It's a pretty simpleequation.
Here's a quote from an owner: "One of the challenges I have is buying into a falling market,"he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "When you buy into a rising market, you can't move fast enough. The challenge here is that, look, anyinvestment you made in 2008 on Wall Street, 12 months ago, 12 weeks ago, 12 days ago, even 12 hours ago, you are down. We have to be careful with what is goingon here."
That owner was Mark Attanasio. He is the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers. He gave up C.C. Sabathia. And youhave to believe that some of that has to do with the fact that he's an investment banker. Hank and Hal Steinbrenner are not.