The Yankees Still Suck Baseball Salary Cap Poll

[korbel]

Avoidance

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.

Hello Eastender,

You are skirting the point a bit. No one is saying the highest spending team is guaranteed to win it all. The last several years proves that. The point is, do the teams with the most money have an unfair advantage over those teams that have much less. You mention that many recent winners were not the top spenders. As we all realize from the recent failures of the Yankees to win it all despite spending the most, there are other key factors that make a champion like leadership, decison making, motivation, health...even luck. But the effect of spending in gathering talent seems strongly signifcant. In that case the real question is, how many of those different winners you mentioned were in the top tier of spenders and how many were not at the time they won it all or were able to make the playoffs???

Hmmmmm,

Korbel

 

[korbel]

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.

Hello Easteneder,

It's true that money follows achievement, that is only obvious. That statement does not address my question of whether the teams with the most money have an unfair advantage in gathering the best talent. Manny Ramirez, A-Rod and others ended up on their respective teams becuase those teams could offer the most through their far greater financial assets and the lack of a salary cap to limit contract offers. In fact sometimes it seems it may be the limit on the number of players on a team and the available playing time that keeps some teams from monopolizing all the players who have "achieved".

You seem skilled at citing reasonable points without answering the question asked. You are being a successful politician at that. But do you wish to debate with answers together with your own points, or just avoid the real point question of this thread. Do the richest teams have an unfair advantage in gethering the best talent and therefore be far more able to compete much more successfully than the poorest teams??? Some organizations can compete without having more financial resources by making the best out of other competive factors, but that is much rarer than winning when you have the most money and the most talent. Abberations aside, I think a salary cap would bring better competition and broaden more fan support beyond the usual richer dynastic entities.

Waiting,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Clarification

Hello Eastender,

You are skirting the point a bit. No one is saying the highest spending team is guaranteed to win it all. The last several years proves that. The point is, do the teams with the most money have an unfair advantage over those teams that have much less. You mention that many recent winners were not the top spenders. As we all realize from the recent failures of the Yankees to win it all despite spending the most, there are other key factors that make a champion like leadership, decison making, motivation, health...even luck. But the effect of spending in gathering talent seems strongly signifcant. In that case the real question is, how many of those different winners you mentioned were in the top tier of spenders and how many were not at the time they won it all or were able to make the playoffs???

Hmmmmm,

Korbel

I am not skirting the point. You and others tend to combine distinct concepts and then present them as one. Your post quoted above illustrates this phenomena. Having the most money is not the same as spending the most money. Having a quality and using a quality are distinct abilities.

Your latest version of the question is effectively an arguement agaisnt the "Salary Cap" in baseball. Specifically no one has contradicted my post that that baseball suffers from a severe lack of talent = far from enough to stock 30 teams. Why should teams that recognize that they do not have a talent base to compete be forced to spend near a "Salary Cap" level?

A "Salary Cap" if a team is forward looking,would rarely free talent to move elsewhere. A "Salary Cap" would simply free "dead money" players and overpaid players to move elsewhere.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Hello Eastender, You are skirting the point a bit.

He should give lessons in skirting the point, Korbel. I've never encountered, in all my many long years, one so skilled at avoiding the issue at hand. He's all yours, pal. Good luck in getting a straight answer.

 

[eastender]

So Close...................................

Hello Easteneder,

Manny Ramirez, A-Rod and others ended up on their respective teams becuase those teams could offer the most through their far greater financial assets and the lack of a salary cap to limit contract offers. In fact sometimes it seems it may be the limit on the number of players on a team and the available playing time that keeps some teams from monopolizing all the players who have "achieved".

Korbel

Korbel,

So close - you almost had it but you let it slip away.

A-Rod is a prime example. For A-Rod to be with the Yankees proves that his previous teams decided that they could not win with him. Simple fact is that the Yankees have not won the World Series with him or with a number of their overpaid players.

Carl Pavano is another example - Florida let him go after winning a World Series, making a great business and baseball decision.Cleveland did not win a World Series with Ramirez and Thome and decided that the final result would be the same without them. Philadelphia did not win anything with Abreu/ Thome and moved them.

In the NL the NYM have had the highest player payroll at the start of the last four seasons. They are a great repository for overpaid,over the hill and injured players - Delgado,Piazza,Martinez,but have not won the World Series.

With a "Salary Cap" teams get stuck with their stiffs and with players who have great individual stats but lack that extra ingredient of champions since no one else has the flexibility to take them of their hands.

Without a "Salary Cap" in a sport that does not have enough quality talent to go around there is always a taker with an ego who thinks that on their team these players will make a difference.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Carl Pavano is another example - Florida let him go after winning a World Series, making a great business and baseball decision.

Florida did not let him go. He left, but not until a year after the Marlins won the World Series. The Marlins paid him $ 1.5 M in 2003, $3.8 M in 2004 . His salary went to $10 M in 2005. Great business decision or an obvious one? Duh.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Cleveland did not win a World Series with Ramirez and Thome and decided that the final result would be the same without them.

No they didn't. They decided that they couldn't afford to pay Ramirez, who earned $4.25 M in 2000, $13 M in 2001 or $168 M over 8 years. Jim Thome earned $7.5 M in 2002, then signed a six year $85 M contract.

No, the Indians weren't stupid enough to think the couldn't win with Thome and Ramirez, they couldn't afford to sign them. EE seems to invent new ways to be wrong with each passing hour.

 

[korbel]

Devil V Demon???

Korbel,

So close - you almost had it but you let it slip away.

A-Rod is a prime example. For A-Rod to be with the Yankees proves that his previous teams decided that they could not win with him. Simple fact is that the Yankees have not won the World Series with him or with a number of their overpaid players.

Carl Pavano is another example - Florida let him go after winning a World Series, making a great business and baseball decision.Cleveland did not win a World Series with Ramirez and Thome and decided that the final result would be the same without them. Philadelphia did not win anything with Abreu/ Thome and moved them.

In the NL the NYM have had the highest player payroll at the start of the last four seasons. They are a great repository for overpaid,over the hill and injured players - Delgado,Piazza,Martinez,but have not won the World Series.

With a "Salary Cap" teams get stuck with their stiffs and with players who have great individual stats but lack that extra ingredient of champions since no one else has the flexibility to take them of their hands.

Without a "Salary Cap" in a sport that does not have enough quality talent to go around there is always a taker with an ego who thinks that on their team these players will make a difference.

Hello Eastender,

I see a something in what you say. Let me be clear that I never thought money was the most vital factor for success. My grievance is that because some teams can spend in extreme excess to gather enough excellent talent to keep them competitive, despite the lack of or less skill in making other key factors like player leadership, good coaching, team chemistry, etc, work effectively...the money factor has overcome defects in other key winning ingredients and kept these rich teams competitive "artificially". They have not necessarily made a good baseball TEAM, they have bought enough stars who can put together the stat to stay at or near the top of competition. But because they may not have the true ingredients for team "chemistry" they usually fail in the end.

It's true there are a lot more key factors than just huge expense accounts. But they are huge expense accounts that unbalance what sports should be: the competitive use of all the factors of competition without the disproportionate influence of MONEY. I see that for you having a cap or not having a cap seem to be troubling either way...like dealing with the devil or the demon. It's understandable then to be uneasy about either. But I choose to make the game as much of a true sport as it can be rather than to support artificial dynastic monopolies built largely on greater wealth in their predictable march to the playoffs nearly every year. If I wanted to watch something more contrived and artificial I would try "Professional"...LOL...Wrestling.

Toodles,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Falling in Love With A Player

Florida did not let him go. He left, but not until a year after the Marlins won the World Series. The Marlins paid him $ 1.5 M in 2003, $3.8 M in 2004 . His salary went to $10 M in 2005. Great business decision or an obvious one? Duh.

After is after - does not matter if it is immediately or one year after or whenever.

In 2003 Pavano was 12-13 with a World Series championship team. In 2004 he improved to 18 - 8 with a non-championship team. Loria and Samson who had a history with Pavano dating back to Montreal decided he was not worth it.

Better to make such a move sooner than later.

 

[eastender]

Evidence Was There

No they didn't. They decided that they couldn't afford to pay Ramirez, who earned $4.25 M in 2000, $13 M in 2001 or $168 M over 8 years. Jim Thome earned $7.5 M in 2002, then signed a six year $85 M contract.

No, the Indians weren't stupid enough to think the couldn't win with Thome and Ramirez, they couldn't afford to sign them. EE seems to invent new ways to be wrong with each passing hour.

The evidence was there - they hadn't won a World Series with Ramirez and Thome.

Did a threefold+ increase in the salary paid Ramirez make him at least 3 times the better player or 3 times more productive? No it did not. Since his team did not win the World Series in 2001 it obviously did not increase the teams chances of winning a World Series.

The Indians decided to go in another direction.

2001 is an interesting season. The 2001 Mariners had one of the best regular season records in the history of MLB WITHOUT A-Rod,Griffey JR and Randy Johnson.Unfortunately they could not sustain their momentum.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

The Indians decided to go in another direction.

They sure did. And for one simple reason: they couldn't play with the big boys dollar for dollar, not because they didn't think they could win with Ramirez.

Did the Cubs dump Ernie Banks cause they couldn't win with him? Did the Sox dump Teddy Ballgame cause they couldn't win with him? Did the Dodgers dump Robinson, Campanella, Snider, Hodges, Furillo, Reese and Newcombe before 1955 because they couldn't win with them?

If you think the Marlins let Pavano go, the Indians Thome and Ramirez, and the Mariners Rodriguez for any other reason than the fact that they couldn't compete economically with the big boys, you're even stupider than I thought you were.

 

[eastender]

Legitimate Grievance

Hello Eastender,

I see a something in what you say. Let me be clear that I never thought money was the most vital factor for success. My grievance is that because some teams can spend in extreme excess to gather enough excellent talent to keep them competitive, despite the lack of or less skill in making other key factors like player leadership, good coaching, team chemistry, etc, work effectively...the money factor has overcome defects in other key winning ingredients and kept these rich teams competitive "artificially". They have not necessarily made a good baseball TEAM, they have bought enough stars who can put together the stat to stay at or near the top of competition. But because they may not have the true ingredients for team "chemistry" they usually fail in the end.

It's true there are a lot more key factors than just huge expense accounts. But they are huge expense accounts that unbalance what sports should be: the competitive use of all the factors of competition without the disproportionate influence of MONEY. I see that for you having a cap or not having a cap seem to be troubling either way...like dealing with the devil or the demon. It's understandable then to be uneasy about either. But I choose to make the game as much of a true sport as it can be rather than to support artificial dynastic monopolies built largely on greater wealth in their predictable march to the playoffs nearly every year. If I wanted to watch something more contrived and artificial I would try "Professional"...LOL...Wrestling.

Toodles,

Korbel

Your grievance is legitimate but it does not address the issue of an overall lack of talent in MLB.

A "Salary Cap" tends to work in the NFL because you have sufficient talent and every year you have NFL ready talent coming in. Combined with a system of checks and balances, guaranteed bonus against / non-guaranteed contracts, etc plus superior player evaluation systems.

In the NHL the overall level of talent is somewhat below that of the NFL and the Entry Draft does not produce immediate NHL players in the same quantities as the NFL. The buy-out mechanism allows teams to get rid of stiffs while amortizing the contract over twice the remaining years.

In the NBA you have the size vs talent issue and trying to find the right mix of both. Success followed Shaq to Miami."Salary Cap" mechanics are different.
You have very small game rosters(12) compared to other sports not do you need roster depth, 7 or 8 play while 4 or 5 watch unless you need a player to give a foul or it is a blow-out. The NBA draft is two rounds reflecting both the need and availability of fresh talent.

In the case of MLB my biggest fear is that a "Salary Cap" at or near the NFL level of $109 million would require approximately a 40% increase in total payroll expenditures but would not be accompanied by a 40% increase in the talent pool. Examples of overpayment would then skyrocket.

 

[Frontenak]

After is after, why does it matter?

After is after - does not matter if it is immediately or one year after or whenever.

In 2003 Pavano was 12-13 with a World Series championship team. In 2004 he improved to 18 - 8 with a non-championship team. Loria and Samson who had a history with Pavano dating back to Montreal decided he was not worth it.

Better to make such a move sooner than later.

Who cares when?

 

[eastender]

Getting Interesting

They sure did. And for one simple reason: they couldn't play with the big boys dollar for dollar, not because they didn't think they could win with Ramirez.

Did the Cubs dump Ernie Banks cause they couldn't win with him? Did the Sox dump Teddy Ballgame cause they couldn't win with him? Did the Dodgers dump Robinson, Campanella, Snider, Hodges, Furillo, Reese and Newcombe before 1955 because they couldn't win with them?

If you think the Marlins let Pavano go, the Indians Thome and Ramirez, and the Mariners Rodriguez for any other reason than the fact that they couldn't compete economically with the big boys, you're even stupider than I thought you were.

Well Rumples this is getting interesting. Your presentation of alleged FACTS
ia somewhat deficient.

The Dodgers traded Robinson to the Giants after the 1956 season but he retired and neither Snider,Hodges,Maglie nor Podres finished their careers with the Dodgers because the Dodgers figured that they had a better chance of winning with younger replacements AND they did. Wills,Willie and Tommy Davis,Ron Cey, Steve Garvey,and other key players from later Dodger championship teams were moved.

The Yankees moved stalwarts like Bauer,Skowron,Billy Martin and others to create room for younger players.

The idea of the Red Sox moving Ted Williams and replacing him with .............. Lou Clinton does not work.I doubt that any of the other teams from 1955 on would have given them enough to abate the outcry in Boston.

The successful teams have a history of moving players too early rather than too late.

 

[korbel]

Documented

Well Rumples this is getting interesting. Your presentation of alleged FACTS
ia somewhat deficient.

The Dodgers traded Robinson to the Giants after the 1956 season but he retired and neither Snider,Hodges,Maglie nor Podres finished their careers with the Dodgers because the Dodgers figured that they had a better chance of winning with younger replacements AND they did. Wills,Willie and Tommy Davis,Ron Cey, Steve Garvey,and other key players from later Dodger championship teams were moved.

The Yankees moved stalwarts like Bauer,Skowron,Billy Martin and others to create room for younger players.

The idea of the Red Sox moving Ted Williams and replacing him with .............. Lou Clinton does not work.I doubt that any of the other teams from 1955 on would have given them enough to abate the outcry in Boston.

The successful teams have a history of moving players too early rather than too late.

Hello Eastender,

A recent documentary reports that the owner of the Dodgers traded Jackie Robinson mostly because he could not stand his out front firm stand and activism on Civil Rights for African Americans. Robinson never got along well with Walter O'Malley and after Walter O'Malley edged out Branch Rickey for control of the Dodgers the personal differences just got worse. O'Malley never liked Jackie's part in the civil rights movement and the tension it created between them was strong. However Jackie may have slowed, the documentary, built around witnesses and various document sources, shows the trade was more of a personal matter than not.

Good day,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

In Return For................

Hello Eastender,

A recent documentary reports that the owner of the Dodgers traded Jackie Robinson mostly because he could not stand his out front firm stand and activism on Civil Rights for African Americans. However Jackie may have slowed, the documentary, built around witnesses and various document sources, shows it was more of a personal matter than not.

Good day,

Korbel

The trade was for Dick Littlefield,a fringer, which means that no other major league team offered more. Plus the Dodgers had solid replacements.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Well Rumples this is getting interesting. Your presentation of alleged FACTS ia somewhat deficient.

Actually, I used the year 1955 quite consciously, that being the year the Dodgers won it all. My point was, clearly beyond your comprehension, that they didn't unload all of these guys prior to winning the championship deeming that they couldn't win with them as you humorously allege was the reason for the Indians letting Thome and Ramirez go, etc.

As for the players you mention replacing the Boys of Summer, only Wills was with the team within 7 years of the Brooklyn championship season. Odd that you mention Maglie, who was not with the championship team, but only with the Dodgers for a few months the following year.

BTW, Maglie's best pro season was with the Drummondville Cubs in 1949.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

A recent documentary reports that the owner of the Dodgers traded Jackie Robinson mostly because he could not stand his out front firm stand and activism on Civil Rights for African Americans. Robinson never got along well with Walter O'Malley and after Walter O'Malley edged out Branch Rickey for control of the Dodgers the personal differences just got worse. O'Malley never liked Jackie's part in the civil rights movement and the tension it created between them was strong. However Jackie may have slowed, the documentary, built around witnesses and various document sources, shows the trade was more of a personal matter than not.

Probably the primary reason that the Dodgers traded Robinson was his connection to Rickey, whom O'Malley despised. When Rickey left, so did all his scouts, Shotton, his manager, and others. O'Malley didn't edge Rickey out; he bulldozed him out.

The reason that the Dodgers got no more than Littlefield for Robinson was quite simple. Robinson was finished as a player and already showing signs of the diabetes that would take first his eyesight and then his life by 1972.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

The idea of the Red Sox moving Ted Williams and replacing him with .............. Lou Clinton does not work

And replacing Jim Thome with Ben Broussard does? May I suggest engaging the brain before putting the mouth in gear?

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Sorry to see that the post by Cosmo disappeared before I could reply to it.

How amusing that he who is so busy listening to the dulcet sound of his own voice that he doesn't bother listening to what others have to say, clearly demonstrated that his posts wander off into the distance, never replying to others, also doesn't read what others have to say. (Narcissism is sooooo unattractive.)

You still haven't replied to Cosmo, who's post has not been deleted. (Number 13 in this thread.) Anytime now.