The Yankees Still Suck Baseball Salary Cap Poll
- Thread starter korbel
- Start date
I would have to shave your head and place electrode pads before I can proceed further. PM me your availabilities.rumpleforeskiin said:If you disagree with Eastender, then can I assume that you know what he's talking about? If you do, please fill me in.
Thanks but I'll pass. Any taker?rumpleforeskiin said:
Last edited:
Salary Cap Number & Draft Data
You lump the results of two drafts - 1990 and 1992 when you talk about the Jeter/Posada era. Unfortunately that is not how drafts work. I gave a clear example of how certain drafts - NHL, may be evaluated and how such data may be analyzed further. You have expressed an opinion by lumping at least two drafts together without any supporting data or analysis.Please provide such supporting data.
The concept of a "Salary Cap" is empty of substance if you cannot provide a specific dollar value as to what the cap should be. The readers have to have a way of evaluating your grasp of a "Salary Cap" system or its superiority to the present. If you do not provide such a number then the readers cannot evaluate if you understand baseball economics.
The problem Rumples is that when challanged you never have the numbers to support your position. You simply attack the other party.I'm calling your bluff.
This is true for all the other "Salary Cap" supporters. Come up with a figure
that shows whether or not you understand baseball economics.
rumpleforeskiin said:If you disagree with Eastender, then can I assume that you know what he's talking about? If you do, please fill me in.
You lump the results of two drafts - 1990 and 1992 when you talk about the Jeter/Posada era. Unfortunately that is not how drafts work. I gave a clear example of how certain drafts - NHL, may be evaluated and how such data may be analyzed further. You have expressed an opinion by lumping at least two drafts together without any supporting data or analysis.Please provide such supporting data.
The concept of a "Salary Cap" is empty of substance if you cannot provide a specific dollar value as to what the cap should be. The readers have to have a way of evaluating your grasp of a "Salary Cap" system or its superiority to the present. If you do not provide such a number then the readers cannot evaluate if you understand baseball economics.
The problem Rumples is that when challanged you never have the numbers to support your position. You simply attack the other party.I'm calling your bluff.
This is true for all the other "Salary Cap" supporters. Come up with a figure
that shows whether or not you understand baseball economics.
Quite difficult to respond to silly and meaningless questions. The poll you've put up, for example, is nothing short of moronic, given that no one here has any idea of what revenues and expenses are. Frankly, I thought you were smarter than that.eastender said:
Extend your reasoning
Then you should not be commenting on whether there should or shouldn't be a salary cap because by your own admission(above) you do not have sufficient data about revenues and expenses. This has not stopped you.
I have faith in the innate intelligence of board members to form an opinion that is at least honest and from the heart. Obviously you do not since you are not willing to give the board members such an opportunity.This will provide a starting point for some a curiosity for others.
I find it very amusing that you choose to act in the old Soviet tradition of attacking the person and not the idea. You have a habit of calling people names, commenting about their intelligence and using words in the baseball thread that make 6 year old boys giggle. So sad because you could offer so much more.
rumpleforeskiin said:
Then you should not be commenting on whether there should or shouldn't be a salary cap because by your own admission(above) you do not have sufficient data about revenues and expenses. This has not stopped you.
I have faith in the innate intelligence of board members to form an opinion that is at least honest and from the heart. Obviously you do not since you are not willing to give the board members such an opportunity.This will provide a starting point for some a curiosity for others.
I find it very amusing that you choose to act in the old Soviet tradition of attacking the person and not the idea. You have a habit of calling people names, commenting about their intelligence and using words in the baseball thread that make 6 year old boys giggle. So sad because you could offer so much more.
Last edited:
I have more than enough information to comment on the idea of a salary cap. I'm not foolish enough to think I have enough information to suggest a level.eastender said:
If the person in question (you) presented ideas that bore any relation to that to which you were responding, I'd be happy to reply. As long as you continue to speak in tongues, I can only reply to your methodology and not the gibberish to purport to represent as "ideas."eastender said:
Hello Rumpleforeskiin and Eastender,eastender said:
Of course you know what side I am on. I also believe in numbers and your posts have been impressive. I was also going to post something on the numbers comparing team salaries to the teams standings for the year. Then I considered that using a point for one year wasn't going to stand up well to all of this long term analysis. It's been very intersting and stimulating. However, the trouble with all of these numbers is like the two presidential candidates trying to win votes. One knows his numbers so well and could defeat a Harvard professor in a debate. The other doesn't have much of a handle on statistics but, can communicate ideas on a level that the voter relates to closely. That's the main problem with all of this baseball statistical analysis as valid as it is. And I do want to see it go on. But perception, no matter how off it may be, is a very potent force. And it seems that the current perception is...the money torrent needs to be brought under more control.
You are both doing pretty well with your statistical points, no matter how much I disagree with one side. So how come the vote is so darn lopsided here. Yes, many people knew how they wnated to vote before they read anything. That is because when you look at baseball as an average fan you can't help be perceive that things have gotten ridiculous with salaries, ticket prices, and especially how it seems the same few teams are always there with a few new "visitors" each year. When you look at the movements of the big money players, the teams they play for, and how those teams finish each year, you can't help but believe teams are buying high finishes and championships. No matter how their performances turned out Roger Clemens and Matsuzaka are two prime examples of how the lack of a salary cap was used to direct these players to the two biggest money teams in baseball. And as we all know there are the Schillings, Johnsons, A-Rods, Mannys, and many others going to the teams who have the money through free-agency. The fans see this endless talent sucking fest by mostly large money teams and they do not see it as fair baseball. That is probably why this poll is so one-sided despite very good numbers on both sides. I don't think adding more playoff sports is the answer either. For me that only cheapens the prize. But making the playoffs more reachable for more teams is what most fans really want.
The combination of free agency and the lack of a salary cap has created the semi-permanent dynasty system of the few. Not always winning it all, but always closely contending. There are aberrations. This year the D-backs have done very well despite a very low team salary and the Dodgers have done poorly despite a high team salary (although with five current pitching injuries). But the playoff spots and championships almost always follow the money. That pattern is just to consistent despite all of the aberrations. So go ahead give your statistical lecture and prove your point with all the great facts and data you can assemble. Most fans are tired and sick of the dynastic monopolies that never seem to fade whatever you can prove otherwise. It's time to make more teams work harder on being smarter rather than opening their bank accounts. It's time to spread the ability to compete longer to more teams and that will make baseball even healthier.
The fact that A-Rod will never go to a team that can't afford to pay exhorbitantly for him when his contract comes up is another symptom of the outrageous imbalance in baseball that mocks the game as a competitive sport and turns it into a meat market sold to the highest bidder where the ideal of fair play in this sport is often almost a farce. Make baseball a true sport again instead of a dynastic monopoly by a few.
Fairer ball,
Korbel
Last edited:
Thank You
Thank you very much for your contributions. Isn't this fun...lol. I have been sitting back in awe of the knowledge on both sides. I think it's that time of year when this sort of thing allows a release of sorts and I am very happy to see so many posts in such a short time. It looks like some of us have been "letting it all hang out". I wish I had the stats and the skill to make them work better, but there seems to be very able people on both sides. I look forward to what else may come out here.
Enjoy your trip,
Korbel
Hello Eastender,eastender said:
Thank you very much for your contributions. Isn't this fun...lol. I have been sitting back in awe of the knowledge on both sides. I think it's that time of year when this sort of thing allows a release of sorts and I am very happy to see so many posts in such a short time. It looks like some of us have been "letting it all hang out". I wish I had the stats and the skill to make them work better, but there seems to be very able people on both sides. I look forward to what else may come out here.
Enjoy your trip,
Korbel
Last edited:
Hello Doingittodeath,DoingittoDeath said:Nice thought but it will never happen. If a cap meant that fans would get a break in their pockets, fine. A salary cap only means that the owners will pocket more money. Like in the NHL: salary cap = exhorbitant profit for the Leafs and a team that misses the playoffs and the price of tickets goes up in Montreal. Nice system the salary cap.
Yes, it isn't likely to save fans much, but how much of that is their fault for paying higher rates. They support the teams who base prices on market demand and I have not seen much in the way of a price rebellion. So designate a portion of the problem for the fans.
Fans heal thyselves too,
Korbel
Last edited:
Salary Cap and Available Talent
One of the issues that has to be considered when discussing a salary cap in any sport is that of available talent. If a salary cap is introduced along with a floor is there enough quality talent to guarantee parity.
If the talent availability question is asked about baseball the answer is a resounding no.In this post we will look at the situation from a few perspectives.
Lately the best Black American athletes are opting for football and basketball.
Much has been written about the declining number of Black Americans playing baseball - anyone inclined to study this further visit espn.com or cnnsi.com or any other major sports website and do a search.MLB is aware of this problem and is trying to re-build interest and programs before it is too late.
Another example of the lack of talent is the is the dirth of quality pitching.
The Washington Nationals are a prime example.Presently the Nationals have a 55 - 66 record with a pitching staff whose starters were not regular starters
on a MLB staff last year, 2 are rookies (Chico and Lannan) who were at Double A or below last year and not that highly rated by various pre-season
prospect reports. Unless one gets really hot none of their atrters will finish with ten wins.The team has at best three average or above major leaguers - Zimmerman,Schneider and Young. Furthermore they just acquired Wily Mo Pena, another indication of their dirth of talent.
Of the teams that made the play-offs last year, three had less than 90 wins.
SD(88-74), LA(88-74),ST.L(83-78).What is interesting about teams that have less than 90 wins is that usually if the top two or three starters are factored out you have the remaining pitchers well under .500. The 2006 Cardinals,as an example, had two starting pitchers Chris Carpenter 15 - 8 and Jeff Suppan 12 - 7 combine for a 27 - 15 record. The rest of the staff was a combined 56 - 63 close to the present 2007 Nationals record with a much better supporting cast - Albert Pujols amongst others.
Contrast the MLB situation with the NFL - a star QB retires or is injured and he is replaced quickly. A glass of water from the ocean.
One of the issues that has to be considered when discussing a salary cap in any sport is that of available talent. If a salary cap is introduced along with a floor is there enough quality talent to guarantee parity.
If the talent availability question is asked about baseball the answer is a resounding no.In this post we will look at the situation from a few perspectives.
Lately the best Black American athletes are opting for football and basketball.
Much has been written about the declining number of Black Americans playing baseball - anyone inclined to study this further visit espn.com or cnnsi.com or any other major sports website and do a search.MLB is aware of this problem and is trying to re-build interest and programs before it is too late.
Another example of the lack of talent is the is the dirth of quality pitching.
The Washington Nationals are a prime example.Presently the Nationals have a 55 - 66 record with a pitching staff whose starters were not regular starters
on a MLB staff last year, 2 are rookies (Chico and Lannan) who were at Double A or below last year and not that highly rated by various pre-season
prospect reports. Unless one gets really hot none of their atrters will finish with ten wins.The team has at best three average or above major leaguers - Zimmerman,Schneider and Young. Furthermore they just acquired Wily Mo Pena, another indication of their dirth of talent.
Of the teams that made the play-offs last year, three had less than 90 wins.
SD(88-74), LA(88-74),ST.L(83-78).What is interesting about teams that have less than 90 wins is that usually if the top two or three starters are factored out you have the remaining pitchers well under .500. The 2006 Cardinals,as an example, had two starting pitchers Chris Carpenter 15 - 8 and Jeff Suppan 12 - 7 combine for a 27 - 15 record. The rest of the staff was a combined 56 - 63 close to the present 2007 Nationals record with a much better supporting cast - Albert Pujols amongst others.
Contrast the MLB situation with the NFL - a star QB retires or is injured and he is replaced quickly. A glass of water from the ocean.
Last edited:
Genius
Hello Cosmo,
Obviously, you are unaware that there is inherent genius in being a Yankee or any member of their oragnization. Not to mention that they are the sanctified "CHOSEN TEAM". All that filthy lucre is just a relfection of their due reward and has nothing to do with their abilty to win so often despite all the odds. So don't be a doubter. It;s not the money. GOD is with the Yankers.
Bwahahahaha,
Korbel
Cosmo said:
Hello Cosmo,
Obviously, you are unaware that there is inherent genius in being a Yankee or any member of their oragnization. Not to mention that they are the sanctified "CHOSEN TEAM". All that filthy lucre is just a relfection of their due reward and has nothing to do with their abilty to win so often despite all the odds. So don't be a doubter. It;s not the money. GOD is with the Yankers.
Bwahahahaha,
Korbel
Accuracy and Numbers
Sorry to see that the post by Cosmo disappeared before I could reply to it.
Between 1995 and 2006 the Yankees won 4 (1996/1998/1999/2000) out of the 12 World Series despite making the play-offs every year. Except for 1998 - Baltimore,the Yankees were the highest paid team in baseball during the era.
One of the consequences of winning is that you pay for past success with no guarantee of future performance. Also you have to make a choice whether you view salaries as an expense or an investment in your team.Within this context you have to decide at which point do you re-build and how.
There is an old expression "It is what it is" - no one can say what would have happened otherwise.
A couple of fallacies should be put to rest.I am not a Yankees' fan as such.
I appreciate numbers and accuracy.
It is easier and more beneficial to learn something from the study of success than from the study of failure.
Sorry to see that the post by Cosmo disappeared before I could reply to it.
Between 1995 and 2006 the Yankees won 4 (1996/1998/1999/2000) out of the 12 World Series despite making the play-offs every year. Except for 1998 - Baltimore,the Yankees were the highest paid team in baseball during the era.
One of the consequences of winning is that you pay for past success with no guarantee of future performance. Also you have to make a choice whether you view salaries as an expense or an investment in your team.Within this context you have to decide at which point do you re-build and how.
There is an old expression "It is what it is" - no one can say what would have happened otherwise.
A couple of fallacies should be put to rest.I am not a Yankees' fan as such.
I appreciate numbers and accuracy.
It is easier and more beneficial to learn something from the study of success than from the study of failure.
Actually, Cosmo's post hasn't disappeared. It remains quite visible as quoted by Korbel.eastender said:
Please feel free to reply to it at any time. I don't know what point your post was trying to make, but certainly you avoided, as usual, answering Cosmo.
Cosmo's Post
Cosmo's original post was removed - what is quoted by Korbel offers no guarantee that it is the complete original post. More important it seems that Cosmo removed the post himself before I read it so it seems that he decided that he did not want the post on the board.
Do not see any evidence that Cosmo has designated you as his spokesperson.
While Cosmo and I may have different opinions on certain political issues the exchanges have always been civil.
Cannot help with your reading and understanding issues. Others on the boards do not have such difficulties. Come September there may be a solution. Stop watching baseball on TV and enroll in a remedial English class offered at most Adult Education centers .
rumpleforeskiin said:
Cosmo's original post was removed - what is quoted by Korbel offers no guarantee that it is the complete original post. More important it seems that Cosmo removed the post himself before I read it so it seems that he decided that he did not want the post on the board.
Do not see any evidence that Cosmo has designated you as his spokesperson.
While Cosmo and I may have different opinions on certain political issues the exchanges have always been civil.
Cannot help with your reading and understanding issues. Others on the boards do not have such difficulties. Come September there may be a solution. Stop watching baseball on TV and enroll in a remedial English class offered at most Adult Education centers
.My lingusitically challenged friend,eastender said:
Cosmo posted the following question, "Question:
Do you sincerly think that w/o the highest payroll in the game they would've accomplish such ''feats''?"
Can you please point out to me where, amid your usual spate of doubletalk, you answered said question?
Hello Eastender,
The quote by Cosmo in my post number 61 is the full text of the original post without alteration. Cosmo's post was there for a few days and was only removed just after I posted to try to restart debate on this issue. I have no idea why he removed it so soon after I quoted him. But what does that have to do with the question he asked? If it bothers you that someone in your view is trying to speak for him, let me ask the same question so there will be no doubt who is speaking for whom. Do you think the Yankees would have won all those championships without the highest team salary in baseball during that time?
Please,
Korbel
The quote by Cosmo in my post number 61 is the full text of the original post without alteration. Cosmo's post was there for a few days and was only removed just after I posted to try to restart debate on this issue. I have no idea why he removed it so soon after I quoted him. But what does that have to do with the question he asked? If it bothers you that someone in your view is trying to speak for him, let me ask the same question so there will be no doubt who is speaking for whom. Do you think the Yankees would have won all those championships without the highest team salary in baseball during that time?
Your quote here in bold seems to confirm the general theory that "championships follow money" or at least that money generates much more consistent success. To me this situation justifies a salary cap since it seems to show how teams with more money are far more likely to compete successfully and teams with much less much more typically are relgated to season of futility before the season even opens. That situation is not competitive sports in my view, it is dynastic monopoly and your statement seem to agree with mine here...up to a point. So where do we differ???eastender said:
Please,
Korbel
Last edited:
It Is What It Is
It has now become your question since you have adopted it when Cosmo abandonned it.
Simply history "Is what it is". Your question is akin to asking what would the world situation be today if Germany had won WWII. Well Germany did not win WWII and the world situation today "Is what it is".
As usual your question is poorly formed. Are you assuming that other teams would have spent more than the Yankees did at their level or that the Yankees would have spent alot less then they did? Not my fault that you left out this distinction.
I just look at the facts and evidence.
Looking at facts and evidence as presented by a sample year -1998 when the Yankees spent less than the Baltimore Orioles per the USAToday salary
base data then there is clear evidence that the Yankees have/had the ability to win the World Series while spending LESS than another team in MLB.It also shows that spending more than the Yankees does not guarantee a World Series victory.
Conversely between 1995 and 2006 eight of the twelve World Series were won by teams that spent less than the Yankees. Of the eight there was only one repeat winner - Florida,each time with a different owner and different management, so that means seven franchises or eight owner/management groups showed the ability to win while spending less than the Yankees.The remaining franchises that spent less but did not win the World Series obviously did not have the ability regardless of the reason.
rumpleforeskiin said:
It has now become your question since you have adopted it when Cosmo abandonned it.
Simply history "Is what it is". Your question is akin to asking what would the world situation be today if Germany had won WWII. Well Germany did not win WWII and the world situation today "Is what it is".
As usual your question is poorly formed. Are you assuming that other teams would have spent more than the Yankees did at their level or that the Yankees would have spent alot less then they did? Not my fault that you left out this distinction.
I just look at the facts and evidence.
Looking at facts and evidence as presented by a sample year -1998 when the Yankees spent less than the Baltimore Orioles per the USAToday salary
base data then there is clear evidence that the Yankees have/had the ability to win the World Series while spending LESS than another team in MLB.It also shows that spending more than the Yankees does not guarantee a World Series victory.
Conversely between 1995 and 2006 eight of the twelve World Series were won by teams that spent less than the Yankees. Of the eight there was only one repeat winner - Florida,each time with a different owner and different management, so that means seven franchises or eight owner/management groups showed the ability to win while spending less than the Yankees.The remaining franchises that spent less but did not win the World Series obviously did not have the ability regardless of the reason.
Salary Increases
Consider the possibility that "Money follows Achievement". Usually players are rewarded with higher salaries after the team wins or after they win individual awards,break records or surpass average norms of performance. Such salary increases do not guarantee that the level of performance or success will repeat.
I will make a post later today that readers should find interesting.
Korbel said:
Consider the possibility that "Money follows Achievement". Usually players are rewarded with higher salaries after the team wins or after they win individual awards,break records or surpass average norms of performance. Such salary increases do not guarantee that the level of performance or success will repeat.
I will make a post later today that readers should find interesting.
Similar threads
