The Yankees Still Suck Baseball Salary Cap Poll

[korbel]

Hello all,

I will keep it simple this time. Do you favor a salary cap in Major League Baseball???

Here are three firm arguments by two strong believers of their views from both sides already posted publicly. Both are taken from the "Joe. T Memorial Yankees Suck for 2007" thread.

From Doc Holliday in the Affirmative:

Post 1095

I also agree with Bob Costas that a salary cap & salary floor would be the way to go for MLB. In other major sports, the salary cap has created parity among the majority of teams & this has been a blessing for nearly every team's fan base. Right now, baseball is doing very well financially & in attendance, but i believe it could do even greater if they'd have a salary cap in place. The present problem with baseball is that at the start of every season, you can pretty well scratch out three-quarters of the teams from having a chance to win the pennant, and pretty well being able to put down 6 teams who will be contending all season long. What kind of a league is that? Sure, the Yankees have spent like crazy & never won anything lately, but they're still contending for most of the season & the fact they've been able to spend as much as they have on superstar players is very frustrating to the majority of baseball fans. The fact these wealthy baseball teams have thrown all these millions to many of these players (Ichiro being the exception) is what has contributed to an image problem for the league & its players. When you have the homerun king repeatedly telling reporters & anyone else to fuck off & leave him alone, well, i wouldn't see any other pro league putting up with that kind of b.s. It makes me wonder if Pacman Jones can't play baseball?

Bottom line, a salary cap is the way to go in order to improve baseball & maintain its fan base. Last night, i was watching the KC/Jays game with a relative of mine & he noticed that the stadium (in KC) appeared empty for the most part of the game. I told him the plain truth in the fact fans can't be expected to come to the game day after day for all season long when they know for a fact that from the first pitch thrown to start the season, that their team has nearly zero chances to contend against the likes of the Yankees, Boston, etc. It's surprising teams like Pittsburgh & Tampa Bay still have a decent fan base. A few years back, i had pretty much stopped watching baseball until the Toronto team got sold to Ted Rogers & he immediately announced he'd start pouring money into the team in order to make it competitive again. My other favorite team at the time, the Expos, were struggling the keep the team from going down & i totally lost interest when it was taken over by MLB & they were keeping all expenditures at a minimum. It was a miracle (and a great manager in Felipe Alou) that they were still able to contend at all.

I agree that its important for MLB that teams such as Boston & NY remain contenders, but NOT having a salary cap to preserve this is not the way to go. These teams will regularly remain contenders since they have the budgets & tradition to attract good baseball people to run their teams. These teams will also always maintain their fan base & might even be more appreciated (i speak about the Yankees here) & well-liked if they'd manage to win a pennant & contend under the rules of a salary cap. Trust me, i know how people like EB feel about a salary cap since i felt the same way about it (okay, comparing it to communism is far-fetched) before the NHL imposed one on its players. I'm a Leafs fan & the Leafs are possibly the wealthiest team in the NHL & always had the money to attract high-priced talent & be able to trade for them prior to the league's trade deadline. Money was never any object. Well, when the league managed to impose the salary cap onto other teams & players following a long lock-out, i was pissed! However, i understood the need for one & hoped it could achieve its original goals & intentions. Well, to be truly honest, its been great for the league & great for hockey in general. It's been a success, to say the least, and even if it was somewhat destructive to the success of the wealthier teams & made it harder to win, i'm all for it.....even if it means that my Leaf team will not win a championship for many years to come & will at best only be competitive for the next few years at least. But for the sake of hockey & my love for the game, i welcome the salary cap. __________________
"I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom."-----General George S. Patton

Two from EagerBeaver in the Negative:

#1 Post 1070

...I have consistently stated I am against a salary cap in baseball as I believe it is communism and would be the ruination of the league. The Yankees and the Red Sox have to be successful for the league to be successful - in fact it is a running joke at both ESPN and in the offices of MLB ( have friends who work at both places). And there is not much more I need to say in order to prove my point than this: baseball attendance is at AN ALL TIME HIGH. Would you ask MLB to ignore this, install a form of communism in a sport that has always been run as a business, and expect the same level of interest (especially from the east coast media) when the Yankees and Red Sox are reduced to playing on a level field? NO, you would not. Nor can you ignore people at ESPN who say there are the Yankees and the Red Sox, and then there are all the other major league teams.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT. I am sure that even Rumples, with his leftist leaning inclinations, would agree with this very basic business principle.

If you change it, watch the lucrative cable deals disintegrate, watch people not show up at games because there are no longer predictable rivalries, and watch the sport die. This is totally apart from the practical matter of the MLPA never allowing it.

#2 Post 1077

Under the present system, the Tigers went from a 120 loss team in 2003 to American League champs in 2006. They did not do that by spending money. They did it because their young pitchers began to develop. This is the way it has always been in baseball. I believe in MLB. I do not believe in communism. The systems they have in place in the other major sports leagues will not work in baseball. The owners know this, MLB knows this, and of course the MLPA, which is very powerful, will never allow it.

Baseball is played the same way now as it always has been, with the exception that speed has been slightly de-emphasized as a major component of most teams' offenses. No teams exist like the KC Royals of the late 1970s or the Cardinals of the 1980s, which won championships with speed. This is kind of sad and a by-product of the era of power baseball we have entered. It also may be a function of the black athlete migrating to other sports. But the truth is I was never a fan of those teams or their style of play. Give me my Bronx Bombers. That is the style baseball I like to watch. The bashing of inferior pitching, the hitting of tape measure homers and doubles off the wall.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT! I am a baseball purist and I don't want to see communism infiltrate the sport. It will never happen. NO chance, not as long as attendance is where it is and the Yankees and Red Sox keep winning.

Your input is welcome.

Best regards,

Korbel

 

[Techman]

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT. I am sure that even Rumples, with his leftist leaning inclinations, would agree with this very basic business principle.

If you change it, watch the lucrative cable deals disintegrate, watch people not show up at games because there are no longer predictable rivalries, and watch the sport die. This is totally apart from the practical matter of the MLPA never allowing it.

Actually it is broke and it does need fixin'! Any major sports league with such a large number of teams and such a small percentage of them with a chance of making the post season is seriously in need of repair. Predictable rivalries? Which ones...the Yankees and the Red Sox? Americans will show up at the games like sheep, the same way they always have, no matter what happens. Maybe some teams will even increase their attendance if they have at least some chance of winning or at least being able to sign a star player. Maybe you want to fight against 'communism' in the game, EB, but the MLPA is worse...it's a dictatorship. If baseball wants to act as, and be respected as, a big business then they should be under the same anti-trust laws as any other business. The way it is now, MLB is a farce. Get some real drug testing in there, say tests after every playoff game and random after game testing during the season, get rid of Bud 'Bug' Selig, and put in a salary cap and maybe the game will be worth following again.

Techman

 

[korbel]

Sports

Never knew you to be a red-baiter, Beav. On the subject of salary cap, I'm in total agreement with almost every word in Bob Costas' great book, Fair Ball. In it, Costas suggests both a salary cap and a salary floor, and a minimum percent of total revenues spent on player salaries.

Baseball has a special place in our society. It is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship run by a Commisar, oops, Commissioner, oops, Omissioner and is exempt from the Anti-Trust laws designed to keep corporate America honest and fair. (OK, so they don't always work.) As such, it also needs special regulation.

And as for socialism, what's so bad about socializing some stuff that needs socializing. We have socialized schools, highways, cops, and more. Why not baseball. On Saturday, a breathtaking young friend and I went to see Michael Moore's new movie, Sicko, and learned that, among other things, life spans in other western countries that have socialized medicine also have considerably longer lifespans than does the US. And that all the bugaboos re: national health care that red baiters in the US spew like robots are nothing short of bullshit. As we left the theater, my gorgeous young companion turned to me and asked, "What's a deductible?"

Hello all,

A sport is something that starts with as much fairness and balance as humanly possible regardless of "human error". I love my Red Sox and I enjoy the great rivalry with the Yankees. But to see that only 6-8 teams have much of a chance to get to the playoffs every year, except for the unusal upstart that somehow beats the odds, creates a travesty. Baseball should be a sport not a monopoly. Right now because of the lack of a salary cap only a few teams can afford most of the best players. That is a monopoly by a few. When the highest spending team spends 13 times more than the lowest spending team and double the league average it creates a baseball elitism that is the antithesis of what a sport should be. No cap will make every team perfectly equal simply because of the different size fan bases and the market it that creates. But when teams like the Red Sox and Yankees can't dominate the player market through the unlimited bidding that now goes on, other teams will be able to compete more fairly for players and get a fairer chance to compete for the championship. That should easily broaden the interests of fans in those cities who have long suffered from the far greater resources of a few teams, and baseball should be healthier and even more profitable. A more even playing field, fiarer competition is NOT COMMUNISM...red-baiting aside...it is sports with integrity and greater democracy.

Fairer baseball for all,

Korbel

 

[Doc Holliday]

The way it is now, MLB is a farce. Get some real drug testing in there, say tests after every playoff game and random after game testing during the season, get rid of Bud 'Bug' Selig, and put in a salary cap and maybe the game will be worth following again.

I agree. Is it just a coincidence that the only people who enter this thread & throw darts at one another are either Yankees or Red Sox fans? Where are the other fans? Is MLB just mostly about the Red Sox & Yankees? It should be much more than just about the Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Dodgers & Mets. Teams such as KC, Cincy, Pittsburgh and the majority of other teams should have as much of a chance to win a pennant when the season starts as the 'big boys'. There are 30 teams in MLB. Someone who hasn't followed baseball would probably believe today that there are only under 10 teams in MLB since the other 20 are already counted out once the season starts. This is a complete joke!! What kind of bush league is that? Just because 10 teams in the league are playing to full houses doesn't mean that the entire league in general is healthy. If baseball would be so healthy, most of the new stadiums being built or about to be built would be stadiums with seating capacities of over 40 000 & not under. Why is it that the Buffalo Bills of the NFL are able to sell out 80 000 tickets every game? Why do many of the US College football teams able to attract over 100 000 fans at their games? And baseball in general can't do better than 30 000 or so on a good day? The sport of baseball is in big trouble, folks....it won't get any better until they see the light & join all of the other pro leagues & implement a hard salary cap.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT. I am sure that even Rumples, with his leftist leaning inclinations, would agree with this very basic business principle.

Absolutely, Beav. If ain't broke, don't fix it. The problem is, it's broke. (You may choose to see this purely as a business, but the last time I looked at the standings, I saw games ahead and games behind, not dollars in George Steingrabber's pocket. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if my team makes money or not; I want wins.)

On the one hand, you have about 24 teams (all but NY,NY, Bos, LA, LA, Cubs) who can compete for maybe 2-3 years out of 10, but only if their scouting and development are flawless and and they make no major blunders in the free agent market.

On the other hand, you have the Yankees who can ignore scouting and development for the better part of a decade and make blunder after blunder in the free agent market costing into the hundreds of millions of dollars and still compete every single year. (The fact that they ultimately end up failing does nothing to assuage this argument, btw.)

(note: I posted this before reading Techman's astute post.)

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Why is it that the Buffalo Bills of the NFL are able to sell out 80 000 tickets every game? Why do many of the US College football teams able to attract over 100 000 fans at their games?

Not a good argument, Doc. How many tickets would the Bills sell if they had 81 home dates instead of 8? How many Ohio State if 81 instead of 6?

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

The sport of baseball is in big trouble, folks....

Absolutely, true, Doc. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to change because the business of baseball is not in trouble; it's drowning in dollars. While this is fine for the fan of the richest team in baseball (see: Beaver, Eager,) it's not good for the game.

Actually, it's not good for the Yankees either. There is no accomplishment in spending $200,000,000 on salary and winning the WS. All they can do is fail, and they've been doing a remarkable job of that since the turn of the century. Even a victory this year will not wash away the failure. Spending over a billion dollars in salary over seven years and coming away with only one championship is no success, unless you are looking at the world through pinstriped blinders.

And by the way, while I'm rooting for the second richest team in the game (in terms of salary expenditures,) I'm wholly at peace with the notion of having the Red Sox play on the same salary-field with the Royals and Reds.

 

[EagerBeaver]

BP Rejects The Salary Cap - Part I

Rumples' favorite authority cited many times on this Board, the Baseball Prospectus (BP) has rejected the salary cap. Here is the article which exposes the fallacies in the line of thinking that led to this thread:

February 19, 2002
The Daily Prospectus
Salary Cap

by Joe Sheehan

A few weeks ago, I started what I hoped would be a series on baseball's economic issues. As you can see, it's been a while between articles.

It has taken me three weeks to put together a coherent salary-cap column, because there are so many issues that come into play when trying to write about it. There's a mythology that surrounds the salary cap, one so ingrained in any discussion of the topic that to get through the layers of misconceptions takes the work off on a half-dozen tangents, all of which are informative and entertaining, but which make for a difficult read.

So let's start with the basics about the salary cap, and actually, the term itself. The so-called "salary cap" is actually a payroll cap, or a labor-cost cap. Salaries are not limited on an individual basis, but by team, so the restriction is not on the players, but on the teams.

That's an important distinction. Were the more accurate term "payroll cap" used, the effects and intent of the tool would be more clear: to restrict the amount of money management can spend on labor. It's an agreement among competitors to inhibit the labor market, lowering salaries.

A salary cap transfers wealth from labor to management.

That's all it does, and that's all it's supposed to do. The nominally fan-friendly effects of a salary cap are either fictional, or secondary, weak ones. A salary cap merely keeps teams from bidding on labor past a certain point, regardless of the value of the available labor or the team's resources, with the effect of lowering salaries across the board.

The salary cap is a popular concept among many fans, for as best as I can tell, two reasons, both the result of heavy league and media proselytizing:

* The idea that a salary cap will lower the costs associated with attending games.

* The idea that a salary cap will lead to better competitive balance.

Neither is true. The first case is probably the most important one, because it's the one that the leagues and their respective owners have spent years promoting.

The price of tickets is not set to recoup costs, but to maximize revenue.

If you take nothing else from this column; if you think I'm a blithering idiot unfit to spend time in the company of humans; if you'd rather I be carved up and sold for pennies a pound... believe the above statement. Send it to two friends. It's the single misconception most damaging to the public discourse on sports economics.

Prices are set by teams to maximize revenue, and are based on anticipated demand. They are not set to "make up" whatever rise in payroll is anticipated, no matter how many teams send out letters to season-ticket holders claiming this to be the case. Rising player salaries do not drive ticket-price increases.

There are countless examples that show this, but the two I like best are major college sports--where the players are "paid" with scholarships and stipends, yet ticket prices are comparable to those in their professional counterparts--and the NBA and NFL, where a salary cap hasn't stopped a steady rise in ticket prices over the last 15 years. Baseball ticket prices are high because lots of people are going to baseball games. (I know corporate purchases, and the tax laws that drive them, are part of this equation. It's a topic for another day.)

For a salary cap to impact the price of tickets, you'd need something along the lines of a "revenue cap" to balance the scales. This would be a completely irrational solution, in part because implementation would be difficult, and in part because the market would correct for the lowered prices. There would be a huge secondary market in which tickets are priced according to demand, with the revenues going not to the teams themselves, but to the brokers in that market. There's no reason to implement a system that encourages this.

A salary cap isn't going to put money back in fans' pockets.

The notional impact of a salary cap on competitive balance comes from two places. One is the idea that a team's success is tied to its payroll. It's a wrong-headed one, driven by a number of factors including the Yankees' success over the past seven years with a high payroll, the willingness of some teams at the low end of the revenue and payroll scales to suck up revenue-sharing dollars, and a whole host of convoluted statistics cooked up by the Blue Ribbon Panel of Experts Picked by Bud Selig to Produce a Report That Supported His Ideas With as Little Input From Unfriendlies as Possible.

There is no clear relationship between success and payroll, particularly at the high end of the scale. Spending gobs of money on baseball players doesn't guarantee success, even in the wild-card era, as recent performances by the Orioles, Mets, Dodgers, and Red Sox show. It is possible--if more difficult--to win while having a low payroll. The success of the A's and, at least in 2001, the Twins is evidence that even a vanishingly low payroll isn't an absolute barrier to success.

The interactions among payroll and success and market size and revenue and capitalization are complex. When you look at the big picture, at all the reasons why some teams are successful and some aren't, why some are high-revenue and some aren't, there's just no way to pick one solution--a salary cap--from the ether and say "this will make everything right."

Well, to some people there is: the NFL. The blessed NFL is held up as an example of a wildly successful league with a salary cap. The truth is that the NFL's nominal "competitive balance" is a function of a number of factors, including the shorter season, larger playoffs, fixed scheduling, and the greater impact of a reverse-order draft in a sport where players can make a more significant initial impact.

To the extent that the salary cap contributes to competitive balance, I would say that it works negatively: it punishes success, forcing well-built, winning teams to shed talent on a near-constant basis. It also makes it virtually impossible to trade, increasing the impact of a single catastrophic event in a league where teams cannot make adjustments on the fly. A system that punishes success, rather than rewards it, seems an odd construct for any endeavor, and it's one I have difficulty supporting.

The NFL is successful, and the NFL has a salary cap. Unless you're an owner, though, the case that the latter has been a cause of the former is awfully weak.

I'm really going to need to do an entire column on MLB v. NFL, because surface comparisons of the two don't advance the discussion much. Suffice to say that, "because the NFL has one" is a lousy reason to support a salary cap. The two entities share little more than green fields and space on the national stage.

What would the actual effects of a salary cap be, if one was implemented in major league baseball? Well, because the cap is generally tied to a specific percentage of revenue, the first thing you'd have to do is get MLB owners to be honest about their finances. That alone could take us into the 2020 season.

After I wrote my article on revenue sharing, a number of people made the claim that the money going from high-revenue to low-revenue teams would cause the low-revenue teams to become more active in player acquisition, increasing demand for lower-tier free agents and essentially keeping the amount of money going to the players constant. It's a nice theory, and it's popular among those who want to believe that 1) teams are aching to give players money and 2) the MLBPA actually has something to gain from a payroll restraint.

(continued in Part II posted below)

 

[EagerBeaver]

Part II of BP Article Rejecting Salary Cap

It's not likely to be the case, though, and in fact, this is why all salary cap plans come with a salary floor. There are plenty of team owners who don't want to spend more on players than they absolutely have to pay them. This would be especially true if revenue sharing increased enough to guarantee a profit for every team in the league.

Remember what we know about the distribution of talent in major league baseball: it's the right end of a bell curve, with a few great players at the extreme, more players with good talent towards the middle, and a near-endless supply of free, or replacement-level, talent. It's taken some time, but teams are beginning to recognize this, as we saw this winter.

Put another way, there is no "middle class" in baseball. You start young and cheap, and you either become older and expensive, or just older. Changing the distribution of revenue in baseball isn't going to change these things. If Jason Giambi makes $12 million per year instead of $17 million, Tino Martinez isn't going to still make $8 million just because the Reds, Devil Rays, and Royals all have some of the Yankees' money. The entire scale slides down; no "middle class" emerges just because the revenue is distributed differently. None should, because the salary scale should match the distribution of talent.

Any "demand effect" of the extra money going to lower-revenue teams is not going to cancel out the impact of what is happening at the top of the salary scale.

There are other reasons to oppose a salary cap, not the least of which is that it will make being a fan tedious. Derek Zumsteg will have more on this later this week, but for an example of life under a cap, check out Bill Simmons's latest ESPN.com column. Baseball fans may complain about money now, but there is simply no way to talk trade in the NBA without retaining all kinds of ridiculous information, as well as the knowledge of cap rules that are, to understate the case, intricate.

The salary cap is the Holy Grail of sports ownership. If you can get one in your league, you lock in ungodly profits while eliminating risk. That is a perfectly good business plan, and it's hard to fault MLB and its member owners for doing everything they can to force one on the players.

Recognize, though, that the only people who gain anything from a salary cap are those member owners. A salary cap doesn't benefit fans, it doesn't benefit the game as a whole, and it doesn't do anything for competitive balance. It reduces the financial incentives to improve and innovate and succeed. Moreover, the pursuit of a salary cap has caused the leadership of MLB to relentlessly trash its product in an attempt to reach the ultimate goal. The anti-marketing of baseball, which has done more actual damage to the game than any economic system ever could, has one goal: get a salary cap.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Sheehan leaves out one important piece of the salary cap and floor, which Costas does include and which I forgot to mention this morning. There also needs to be a cap on ticket, hot dog, and beer prices. Sheehan, with whom I agree more often than not, also happens, in this case, to be wrong. Yes, it's true that money alone won't win championships every year and that good scouting and development can trump largesse, it's also true that the Yankees do compete every year and that if they were half-competently run, they'd win more years than not. (BTW, for the record and not that it colors his analysis, Sheehan despite living in California, does happen to root for the Yankees.)

Actually, Costas stops a little short. I personally think that private ownership of MLB teams is a bad idea. While the owners do have a fiduciary interest in the clubs, that interest palls beside the emotional attachment of millions of fans. If MLB teams were held in the public trust, as they should be, the Expos would be playing at a new park on Rue Montagne and, sigh, the Dodgers would still be in Brooklyn.

 

[Cosmo]

Hi,

While I,m no expert on Baseball,I find it interesting that some have compared the salary cap to communism.

Back in the old USSR,in their top hockey leauge,the Red Army team would always be the best team,year after year.Not because they bought players,but because they forced them to play for them,stealing the best players from the other teams who had no choice but to let them go.

What would happen eventually is that fans would become bored,knowing in advance who would win the championship.

It seems that the same is happening with baseball and it's free market capitalism system.

MLB is the only major pro leauge w/o a salary cap.It's about time they reach the 21st century.I agree with most that the current system is boring and far to predictable for entertainments sake.Winning w/o challenge is not really glorious.

my2¢

I'm moving that comment,not to interfere with E.B's two part post.

cosmo

 

[John Legend]

If you don't like baseball the way it is setup now, then its very simple... Don't watch it or follow it.

 

[eastender]

Salary Cap Does Not Matter

The idea that a salary cap would make a big difference in MLB or any sport for that matter is utter NONSENSE based on misguided information and half truths pushed by people who at best should know better.

Lets look at some of the points raised closely. A learned poster makes the point the point that at the start of the year only 6 - 8 teams have a chance.
Crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at the standings today and 18 of the teams are within 10 games of the top of their division.Given the historical FACT that in 1951 the Dodgers, the 1964 Phillies and 1978 Red Sox to name three blew significant leads with less time to play before the end of the season so a significant number of teams do have a chance to participate in the play-offs or World Series.

Looking at the post war era 1946 to 1964, no entry draft,dominated by the NY Yankees and we will see that the following AL teams played in the World Series: Boston,NY Yankees, Chicago, and Cleveland while the following did not Washington/Minnesota,Washington and LA Angels(expansion teams),Detroit, St.Louis/Baltimore and Philadelphia/Kansas City did not. Only one small market team represented the AL in 19 World Series - Cleveland in 1948 and 1954. FACT three of the small market teams had to move.In the NL the following played in the World Series Brooklyn/LA Dodgers, NY/SF Giants, Boston/Milwaukee Braves,St.Louis,Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Philadelphia. Three of the so called BIG market teams actually moved to other cities. Chicago plus the two expansion teams Houston and NY Mets did play in a World Series. In this time frame the Yankees won more World Series than they have in the last twenty years and BIG MARKET teams won more World Series than they have in the last twenty years.In the 1946 - 64 era only small market St.Louis 1946&64,Cleveland 1948,Milwaukee 1957,Pittsburgh 1960 - when Maurtaugh out managed Stengel in the pitching match-ups.
5 out of 19 were small market teams. Since 1987 the following small market teams have won World Series: Minnesota (2),Toronto(2),Florida(2), Arizona,Oakland,Cincinnati,St.Louis or 10 out of 19 World Series have been won by small market teams. No 1994 WS.

Furthermore since the 1994 strike 3 EXPANSION teams - Florida(2) and Arizona have won the World Series - three times more than the RED SOX in about 80 years.

One of the realities of 30 team leagues is that you will never have parity. The gap between the best and the worst organization,GM, minor league system, scouting all down the line will always be too great. On any team look at the gap talent wise between the the best and the 25th roster spot and you should understand this.

The final canard is that the Yankees spend way to much and they should regularly win 110,120................. 162 games depending on the mood of the poster.More CROCK. In the history of BB including the Federal and Players leagues the nature of the game shows that winning 62% of your games orover 105 games in a 154 or 162 season is an aberration - simply pros even if there is a large salary differential are not going to rollover and let you win.

From another standpoint the difference between a $100 and a $1000 a night hotel room is not that you sleep 10 times longer or better but you get better frills,likewise a Mercedes does not get you to your destination 10 times faster than a used Camry.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

What you say, Eastender, is so full of flaws, that I'll just take on a few.

1. Any team can contend. Yes, any team can contend for a few years. The Tigers were contenders in the mid-to-late 80's and now they're contenders again. The Mariners were contenders for a few years around the turn of the century and now they're contenders again. The Indians were contenders for a few years a decade ago and now they're contenders again. Good organizations can contend for a few years every decade without spending a fortune. Bad organizations (see: KC, TB) will likely never contend. On the other hand, regardless of the quality of the organization, rich teams can contend at will. The Yankees and Red Sox each went a decade without developing ONE significant player (zip between Jeter/Posada/Rivera and Cano/Wang and zip between Nomar and Youkilis/Papelbon), yet each team was in contention every year. And, of course, rich teams can, unlike our late Expos, retain the talent they develop.

2. 18 teams are within 10 games of first place. You cite three unique examples that took place over the course of half a century. The 1951 Dodgers did not collapse, they were caught and forced to a playoff by a Giant team that went 42-15 over the last two months of the season. Somehow, I just don't see the 2007 Pirates doing that. The 1964 Phillies collapsed. The 1978 Red Sox were mis-managed in stunning fashion. Very few of the teams of the 18 you mention have the talent to pull off the sort of late run you allude to.

3. Since 1994, three expansion teams have won the World Series. Absolutely true. And what did those three expansion teams have in common? Bingo. They broke the bank on high priced free agents. How far would the D'Backs have gotten in 2001 without Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling? The 1997 Marlins without Moises Alou, Bobby Bonilla, Gary Sheffield, and Kevin Brown? The 2003 Marlins were that rare coming together of home grown talent that catches lightning in a bottle, though bringing in Pudge Rodriguez didn't hurt. This particular argument of yours is perfect proof that money talks.

4. a Mercedes does not get you to your destination 10 times faster than a used Camry. So what you're saying in essence is that a $9 M Mike Lowell will get you to October every bit as fast as will a $25 M Alex Rodriguez? I don't understand. Please elaborate.

 

[Cosmo]

eastender,

Facts:

NY Yankees=highest payroll in pro sports,at least in NA.
NY Yankees=15 or something years in a row in the playoffs,5 pennants in that span.

Question:

Do you sincerly think that w/o the highest payroll in the game they would've accomplish such ''feats''?

Me thinks not.

cosmo

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Do you sincerly think that w/o the highest payroll in the game they would've accomplish such ''feats''?

You might have asked, "Do you really think the Yankees could have contended for 15 years in a row while going nearly 10 years without developing 1 major league player?"

 

[EagerBeaver]

The 1997 Marlins without Moises Alou, Bobby Bonilla, Gary Sheffield, and Kevin Brown? The 2003 Marlins were that rare coming together of home grown talent that catches lightning in a bottle, though bringing in Pudge Rodriguez didn't hurt. This particular argument of yours is perfect proof that money talks.

The 1997 and 2003 Marlins show both ends of the spectrum: winning with a big payroll and winning with no payroll, which tends to prove Sheehan's argument that a salary cap is irrelevant to establishing a competitive balance. It should be noted that the 1997 Marlins team the next year conducted a "fire sale" of their high priced free agents that was deemed to be so shocking in creating a competitive imbalance that rules were enacted to prevent its recurrence. But despite that fire sale, the Marlins would win again with an entirely new, different core of very young home grown talent only 6 years later.

Regarding the Yankees going ten years without developing any players, it is because during that time frame they were trading away what farm talent they had to other teams for established players. They had a young enough core at the major league level to be able to get away with it. Cashman realized over the last few years that the pitching core was aging and it is now being replenished from within. Which is not to say that the team will not dabble in the free agent pitching market again, but things do go in cycles for many teams.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

The 1997 and 2003 Marlins show both ends of the spectrum: winning with a big payroll and winning with no payroll, which tends to prove Sheehan's argument that a salary cap is irrelevant to establishing a competitive balance.

No, it proves that there are no absolutes. Look at the teams that are always in contention and you'll find one thing in common: high payroll. Look at the teams that are never in contention: low payroll.

 

[eastender]

Your points ........................

What you say, Eastender, is so full of flaws, that I'll just take on a few.

1.The Yankees and Red Sox each went a decade without developing ONE significant player (zip between Jeter/Posada/Rivera and Cano/Wang and zip between Nomar and Youkilis/Papelbon), yet each team was in contention every year..

2. 18 teams are within 10 games of first place. You cite three unique examples that took place over the course of half a century. The 1951 Dodgers did not collapse, they were caught and forced to a playoff by a Giant team that went 42-15 over the last two months of the season. Somehow, I just don't see the 2007 Pirates doing that. The 1964 Phillies collapsed. The 1978 Red Sox were mis-managed in stunning fashion. Very few of the teams of the 18 you mention have the talent to pull off the sort of late run you allude to.

3. Since 1994, three expansion teams have won the World Series. Absolutely true. And what did those three expansion teams have in common? Bingo. They broke the bank on high priced free agents. How far would the D'Backs have gotten in 2001 without Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling? The 1997 Marlins without Moises Alou, Bobby Bonilla, Gary Sheffield, and Kevin Brown? The 2003 Marlins were that rare coming together of home grown talent that catches lightning in a bottle, though bringing in Pudge Rodriguez didn't hurt. This particular argument of yours is perfect proof that money talks.

4. a Mercedes does not get you to your destination 10 times faster than a used Camry. So what you're saying in essence is that a $9 M Mike Lowell will get you to October every bit as fast as will a $25 M Alex Rodriguez? I don't understand. Please elaborate.

1. You overlook Melky Cabrera,Mike Lowell,Alfonso Soriano and Nick Johnson who were developed by the Yankees, Hanley Ramirez by the Red Sox.These are quickly of the top of my head.Since you did not specify that they had to be kept by the team I assume that you did not have this as a criterea.

2. Talent is not the issue on the top teams today - the Yankees,Red Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Seattle, and most of the NL leaders have glaring holes or questionnable managers so the potential for collapse is there. Pro sports is more often then not a question of letting the other team figure out a way to lose - evidenced by Gene Mauch, Don Zimmer, Danny Murtaugh vs Casey Stengel in 1960, Jerry Glanville, Buddy Ryan, Don Cherry. Just a short list of managers or situations where coaches/managers grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory. CFL coaches excluded.

3. Your only mildly viable point. Wise spending and the use of financial assets.
Knowing when to flip the expensive contracts - when to fold. No obligation to play each hand to the max or to the end. The basic issue is not one of salary cap but guaranteed contracts. If contracts may be terminated or bought out then the salary cap skyrockets - evidenced the NFL.Compare the salaries of MLB teams in Pittsburgh,Tampa Bay and other small markets with the MLB teams in the same city. The difference in Pittsburgh is the Steelers can cut a stiff, save the money and roll the dice on another ad infinitum.The Pirates cannot.Without a contract termination or buy-outs you have large amounts of dead money on teams like the Yankees and Red Sox.

4. Salary A-Rod : Lowell is a 25:9 ratio using the numbers you provide. If Lowell produces 90 RBI do not expect A-Rod to produce 250 RBI. If Lowell has 300 assists do not expect A-Rod to have 833 assists. Having A-Rod on your team instead of Mike Lowell does not triple(almost) your chances of going to the World series.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

1. You overlook Melky Cabrera,Mike Lowell,Alfonso Soriano and Nick Johnson who were developed by the Yankees, Hanley Ramirez by the Red Sox.These are quickly of the top of my head.Since you did not specify that they had to be kept by the team I assume that you did not have this as a criterea.

I spoke of an 8 year void between the Posada/Jeter era and the Cano/Cabrera era. Lowell did not come up during the void, but during the earlier era. I did not over look Cabrera. Soriano is a gray area, as he was purchased by the Yankees from the Japanese minor leagues. Johnson is hardly a player I'd consider a success.

2. Talent is not the issue on the top teams today - the Yankees,Red Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Seattle, and most of the NL leaders have glaring holes or questionnable managers so the potential for collapse is there. Pro sports is more often then not a question of letting the other team figure out a way to lose - evidenced by Gene Mauch, Don Zimmer, Danny Murtaugh vs Casey Stengel in 1960, Jerry Glanville, Buddy Ryan, Don Cherry. Just a short list of managers or situations where coaches/managers grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory. CFL coaches excluded.

What does this have to do with anything I said?

3. Your only mildly viable point. Wise spending and the use of financial assets. Knowing when to flip the expensive contracts - when to fold. No obligation to play each hand to the max or to the end.

What does this have to do with any part of this entire thread to date, or are you trying to, as you often do, bolster your argument through obfuscation. ("If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." That strategy works with some, but I ain't buying.) I must confess that I don't understand the whole point of long term contracts in the NFL if they can be easily torn up by the clubs.

4. Salary A-Rod : Lowell is a 25:9 ratio using the numbers you provide. If Lowell produces 90 RBI do not expect A-Rod to produce 250 RBI. If Lowell has 300 assists do not expect A-Rod to have 833 assists. Having A-Rod on your team instead of Mike Lowell does not triple(almost) your chances of going to the World series.

Or course they don't, but that couldn't be more irrelevant or your argument more specious. Having A-Rod in your lineup does significantly improve your chances of going into the playoffs and, since either player, regardless of salary, occupies one slot in the lineup, if you can toss the money his way, it's worth spending.