"Competitive balance" a myth
I don't know about you, but I am getting really frustrated watching this off-season unfold. What's specifically bothering me is the whole Yankees/Red Sox arms race. The Yanks decided they'd blow everybody else out of the water with Sabathia, giving him $160 M, and what's irritating is that they're not done! Imagine if they sign Sheets and Lowe as well. They've stolen the Brewers 1 and 2 starters, effectively ruining that small market team's chances of competing next year. If I'm the Brewers, I hold a fire sale and reload for a few years from now.
Meanwhile, you have the Red Sox, rumor has it, getting close to picking up Texiera. How sickening. An already scary team adding someone of his ilk. Despite a reeling economy, these 2 teams have, it seems, an unlimited amount of funds at their disposal, and can always remain competitive. The small market teams, on the other hand, have to have young talent that all gell at the right time together, and have only a very small window of a year or two with which to compete. Once that window is over (see Milwaukee, and perhaps Tampa in a few years), it's over, and time to blow up and rebuild once their guys get too expensive.
I know Mil being done is good for the Cubs. I hope we get Peavy more than anyone. But imagine if we do- a starting rotation that makes $60 M a year? Ridiculous. Not coincidentally, it'll be the best rotation in baseball. How is this fair?
I know, I know- spending money guarantees nothing. Look at the Yankees the last few years, and look at us. But it's an undeniable fact that spending money greatly increases your chances- I heard something like of the top 5 payrolls in baseball (NY x2, LA, Chi x 2), 3 of the 5 made the playoffs last year, and the other 2 were close. Coincidence? I think not.
If we ever needed a salary cap, it's now. Competitive balance is a myth, and frankly, it lessens my interest in the game. But I know the players' union will never agree to a cap. What are your thoughts? Is the implementation of a salary cap a possibility at any point? Am I the only one who gets a bit sick of the fact that the teams with the deepest pockets have the best chance of winning? Curious as to your thoughts.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
92 comments
Comments
Guess some NLC teams
think that of the Cubs….just guessing though.
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Dec 11, 2008 10:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Your right blackhawk
But those NL central teams aren’t complaining when we fill their empty ballparks and buy their beer and hotdogs at incredible rates.
by MrShowtime on Dec 11, 2008 10:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Road games
Of course the same can be said for the Yankees and Red Sox.
by cliff on Dec 11, 2008 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It certainly sucks for the Jays, Orioles, and Rays...
Yes, the Rays have a very talented team right now. But it took incredibly fortunate moves and the fact that they’ve had an inordinate run of high draft picks over the years for them to succeed. And it didn’t hurt that the Yankees had a down year. And I doubt they’ll have a long shelf life, because when their cheap players stop being cheap they won’t be able to keep them.
But, that’s just the reality of baseball. The small market teams have to hope for better success in the draft and to get lucky from year to year.
The real concern should be the Red Sox. They have unlimited payroll AND a good farm system. At least with the Cubs and Yankees, they can be countered by a mediocre/poor farm system. The Rad Sox are the type of team that is a nightmare to the idea of competitive balance.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 10:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
None of that seemed to matter...
… for last year’s postseason, when the small-market Brewers and Rays made the playoffs.
Spending this kind of money guarantees you nothing.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Dec 11, 2008 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And furthermore...
The Yankees, in revenue-sharing, subsidize the entire payroll of the Marlins.
There is nothing wrong with saying to an owner, “Spend $60 million at minimum or get the hell out” Baseball should do that. That would fix a lot of the problem right there.
The worst beer I had was pretty good.
by Worf on Dec 11, 2008 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the NHL has a salary floor rule
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes they do
There’s a cap and a sill.
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Dec 11, 2008 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In any year, a small-market team can compete..
It’s the fact that in EVERY year, those big spenders are around. Spending the kind of money doesn’t GUARANTEE anything. But it makes life a LOT easier. For reference, compare the frequency of playoff trips in the 2000s as compared to the Rays and Brewers.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Part of that is also poor development and drafting
Look at the Yankees, again or the Red Sox and look at how many great players they have that they developed
Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Joba, Jon Lester, Bucholz, Youkilis, Pedroia, Lowrie, Bernie Williams
And they also take chances on guys like David Ortiz and make shrewd trades for Varitek and Lowe.
The Royals and Brewers of the world are bad in large part thanks to their own organizational shortcomings. Its the same in all sports, look at the NBA and all the frenzy around 2010 and Lebron, when the fact is only one Max-Free Agent, Shaq, has ever won a title.
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Partly true...
but a small market team has a MUCH more difficult time remaining competitive over the long haul than a big spender. I think this is irrefutably the case, and I think the evidence supports it.
For example, the Yankees built their team on good young talent. But they’ve maintained a consistent competitor by outspending the competition. Boston built their team by spending a lot, and have maintained it by spending AND developing players.
A small market team is at a real disservice, because they can’t afford to keep their successful farm system once it reaches free agency. Life is MUCH tougher for them over the long-term.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well this is going nowhere, i see what youre saying
But other teams can spend more than they do, they simply choose not too and make half assed offers so they can say to their fans “see, we tried”
The league is successful in the books, so I dont know that any perceived lack of competitive balance is hurting the league.
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not hurting the league...
it’s just hurting the fans of small-market teams.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A salary cap would be difficult to implement wouldnt it?
It would surely cause a lockout by the owners and change the structure of all players contracts.
Theres a salary cap in the NBA and it does little to promote parity, the league has been dominated by the Spurs, Lakers and Pistons the past ten years….so its as much development as it is spending.
The Spurs dont spend lavishly, they develop their own talent and are one of the smaller market teams, so it can be done.
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But the NBA doesn't have it's own farm system
Or is college ball considered to be it?
One day I hope to come up with something worthy of this space.
by chilango2 on Dec 11, 2008 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
NBA
Has the Dleague, like the minors
by MrShowtime on Dec 11, 2008 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the Dleague is getting there
a few teams, teh Spurs and Lakers, own dleague teams outright and use them in the same fashion as baseball and hockey
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It'd be very difficult to implement...
I’m ambivalent about the issue personally. I just hate it when people argue “spending hasn’t helped the Yankees or the Red Sox” or “look at the Rays this year.”
The NBA is a different animal, because one player can make such an impact in basketball as compared to football or baseball. And also, the draft rules are different in basketball. Though I might argue that the salary cap HAS worked in the NBA. San Antonio would never be able to compete with New York or LA in spending without a cap.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
I understand your point completely and it does help them, but I dont think its as big a negative mark on the league as others.
But like you implied, successful big market teams are good for the league financially and in terms of popularity, so it might be a necessary evil
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
See I dont think so
Maybe Im biased b/c Im such a Spurs fan, but they did get a gift in the Duncan lottery. But they also did an incredible job finding Parker and Ginobili, and signed them all to below market deals; fighting off Orlando for Duncan and Denver for Manu.
They constantly do whatever it takes to stay under the luxury tax threshold, but they were, and have been, able to stay successful w/ meager spending, they rank 20th in spending in the league
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the salary cap and draft structure helped a LOT..
If there WASN’T the lottery, the Spurs don’t get Duncan. I don’t think they build a title contender without him. They certainly don’t do it without the salary cap, which kept big market teams from going completely crazy.
Further, if there wasn’t a salary cap, the Knicks (or others like the Magic) would have been able to spend even more wildly to attract free agents. It wouldn’t have been as difficult for a team to build a juggernaut to top the small-market Spurs, even with Duncan.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
those guys did get bigger offers though
and they chose to stay, maybe the lack of state income tax in texas helped. But the lottery is unique to basketball and its a dumb idea if you ask me.
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 12:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not talking about taking guys FROM the Spurs...
I’m talking about luring OTHER free agents to build a winner. The cap structure makes it difficult for other teams to lure away free agents. Without it, the big-market teams could have lured multiple free agents and thus make a Duncan-led SA team relatively less impressive.
And FYI, Florida has no income tax either.
by SouthernCub on Dec 12, 2008 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not sure if it's a good idea, but a friend of mine have been kicking
this idea around for the past couple of years. We all know there are pro’s and con’s for no salary cap vs salary cap.
What we were thinking is maybe issue a maximum amount you can pay 1 player and that number would change with inflation.
Another variation of that is once the player max is established, maybe make a max amount of those types of players you can have on your team.
Any thoughts?
by MrShowtime on Dec 11, 2008 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the economy might dictate it someday
but the market for baseball, in terms of fans and talent, is growing….we’re seeing Japanese, Koreans, Aussies and even some Europeans getting into the pro ranks, so i think the sport is tremendously healthy, and the talent pool will deepen…..so the small market teams would have to be in dire straights for a salary cap to take hold.
the revenue sharing and luxury taxes help the small teams, but if you have a frugal owner, what good is it?
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The Yankees stole nothing
The Brewers had every right, every opportunity and every chance to find the money to sign Sabathia. The Yankees made a better offer.
Them’s the breaks.
And here’s something else to consider:
Since 2000, only one team, the Red Sox, has won more than one championship. Only two other times — Cards in 04 and 06 and Yanks in 00, 01 and 03, have teams made it to more than one World Series.
More teams have a chance than they did in the 1990s.
The worst beer I had was pretty good.
by Worf on Dec 11, 2008 10:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
That first part is BS, second is dead nuts on
The Brewers were/are in no position to sign CC for those dollars given their budget. Revenue sharing goes only so far. What the Yankees have – the YES Network – no other team has.
What makes sense is who wins, like the lesser-cash 2003 Marlins.
Spending huge amounts of cash doesn’t guarantee anything but the Yankees have financial resources pretty much no other MLB team has.
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Dec 11, 2008 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
NO NETWORK
The Brewers did make an effort and offered a great deal of money beyond their “regular” budget
but C.C. took the money just like most people, it’s human nature to say no to less
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy."
- Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton
by CubFreak on Dec 11, 2008 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Capitalism
MLB is a microcosm of globalization and trade agreements done by countries worldwide. It is a reality, and even though some of us find it unfair and abusive, it is the way the world works.
I can’t speak of the NFL and it’s rules for salary caps and dividend distribution because I really don’t care for their labor issues—but they seem to be more fair to small-market teams. But MLB practices are unfair at many levels throughout its stratification.
I believe that under new supervision, some things can be changed to provide better conditions to small teams. However, MLBPA and its members may try blocking any changes, as they are more likely to profit from current practices.
One day I hope to come up with something worthy of this space.
by chilango2 on Dec 11, 2008 10:47 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
There is a difference
Companies don’t need 29 competitors to survive. If the other teams are no good, who wants to watch the games?
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! --Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 11, 2008 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL is the most socialist league in the country
And its wildly successful, imagine that
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Apples and oranges...
the NFL also benefits from having an arguably more exciting product than baseball.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It also benefits from being only once a week and fitting into the short attention span of Americans
But if they had no salary cap and no wealth distribution, youre telling me a team like Jacksonville or Buffalo or Seattle or Tampa or Carolina could compete with the NYs and NE….doubt it
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
two different arguments...
Success of the league and ability for all teams to compete are two different debates.
I’d argue that the NFL would be successful without the socialist structure. And I’d agree that teams like Jacksonville wouldn’t be able to compete.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so you would have MLB follow the NFLs model?
I would argue the Yankees and Red Sox success has as much to do with their own developed players as it does with FA, for every Mike Mussina signing theres a Carl Pavano or Kenny Rogers, while DJ and Jorge have been the lynch pins for that team
The Cubs have been woefully mismanaged throughout their history, as have many other perpetual losers
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on what you want...
do you want financial success, or do you want balance?
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesnt the financial success spill to all teams
from the TV deals and revenue sharing?
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think balance would hurt financial success...
hence I think you get one or the other. If you have a balanced product, you lose a lot of the big-market revenue. I think MLB has greatly profited from the Yankees, Red Sox, and (now) Cubs success.
Make it more difficult for the big boys to dominate and you hurt the revenue streams.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
The large market teams, coincidentally or not, are some of the oldest and most storied franchises in the league, their fans will always support them.
I dont think theyre mutually exclusive, I just dont see it happening anytime soon, nor do I think its entirely to blame for the small market teams failures….you simply need to work harder at other aspects and have a capable GM like Beane
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The hardcore fans will always support them...
but if they aren’t winning, you lose playoff dollars. And if they aren’t winning, the bandwagon fans stop watching regular season games on TV.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know how
If I would, I wouldn’t be stuck in a dead-end job, but there’s got to be a way of providing a set of regulations to permit a balanced financial success to all members.
The reality is that money helps, but it alone doesn’t win championships. Teams with so-called nobodies have won it all and vice-versa.
One day I hope to come up with something worthy of this space.
by chilango2 on Dec 11, 2008 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is bologna.
I’d argue that the NFL would be successful without the socialist structure. And I’d agree that teams like Jacksonville wouldn’t be able to compete.
NFL games aren’t exciting in blowouts, and that is what we see when we see a bad team against a great team (if there wasn’t a cap). In baseball, there are a lot more exciting games between good teams and bad teams. Also, baseball has more “fans” who just enjoy watching the game who would be more willing to watch a game between a good team and a bad team.
by GoCubbies34 on Dec 11, 2008 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Between gambling and fantasy football
I couldn’t disagree more.
I love baseball. But it’s not even close. Football is king in this country, even the most seemingly mundane contests.
For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.
by Less is Walrond on Dec 11, 2008 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The difference is...
… in the NFL, not from one GAME to the next, but from one YEAR to the next. Look at the Dolphins, who were 1-15 last year and probably make the playoffs this year.
You can do that in one year in the NFL, not so much in baseball.
Except for the Lions, of course.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Dec 11, 2008 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's easier in football, but not unheard of in baseball...
The 2003 Marlins, 2006 Tigers, and 2008 D-Rays made the World Series after sub-.500 years in one season without significant boasts in payroll (the Tigers did increase, but not that much). …and I didn’t have to really dig deep to find examples.
Well managed teams in MLB can compete without a salary cap, just as poorly managed teams (Lions, Texans, etc) will never compete even with a salary cap. The salary cap will reign in the Yanks and BoSox, but it won’t “solve” the competative balance.
…plus, having the Yankees or BoSox as a “bad guy” is kind of fun :)
by MarchHare on Dec 11, 2008 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No way.
I am a bigger football fan than baseball probaly (or at least used to be) but I even dislike watching a blowout of a Bears game. Who didn’t know the Bears were going to demolish the Rams?? And how fun of a game was that to watch?
by GoCubbies34 on Dec 11, 2008 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you had money on the point spread or over/under...
Or had any of those players on your fantasy team, I’ll bet a lot of people stayed eagerly tuned.
That’s not to say people don’t play fantasy baseball or don’t gamble on baseball, but it’s not even close to football in those aspects.
And of course nobody watches a blowout in any sport on the edge of their seat. Do you enjoy watching a 14-2 baseball game in the late innings, even if it is the Cubs?
For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.
by Less is Walrond on Dec 11, 2008 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt the Brewers or small market teams cant compete
Their owners simply prefer to pocket the cash, dont blame the Yankees for being willing to spend that amount of money, Hank and Hal could easily sit on that and add it to their coffers.
Besides, the Yankees havent won this entire decade of throwing nine figure deals around, so you cant necessarily buy a title.
Also, a different team has won the world series every year this decade
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 10:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Again, the "haven't won a title" argument is short-sighted...
The Yankees have been unfortunate to not have won a championship. But they’ve been in the postseason in EVERY year but last year for the past decade or more. Their payroll has consistently gotten them to the postseason.
Comparatively, small market teams come and go. Sure, we’ll see a team emerge for a year or two. Then, they’ll fade back to mediocrity (or worse). But those big market teams keep on making the playoffs and keep on having chances to win it all.
That’s the measure of success that should be considered. Winning in the playoffs is a crapshoot. Any team can win a best-of-seven over any other team. It’s much more random. The fact that the Yankees haven’t won in the postseason is less an indictment of big spending and more a function of the random nature of baseball playoffs.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What about the Braves
they did the exact same thing and werent exactly spending like Rockefellers
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Braves did it in a cheaper era...
in the 90s, they were closer to the big boys in spending. In the late-90s, the payrolls took off and the Braves changed ownership and got cheaper (literally and relatively). They hung on thanks to a weak division and the remains of the great pitching staff. Now, they’re struggling.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Twins are contenders every year
Oakland almost is, too.
by elgato on Dec 11, 2008 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Buying a championship the real myth
Don’t cry for the “small markets”, they have their own competitive options. The mainstream would never accuse Milwaukee of “buying” themselves a trip the playoffs last year but by acquiring Sabathia, did they do anything that the Yankees aren’t doing right now? Sure, the currency involved was young players instead of dollars but the net result is that both teams are trying to better their clubs at the expense of some of their resources be it players or dollars. Yes, the Yankees have more of the latter than nearly eveyrone else, but I would argue that the don’t have more of the former. They do business one way, other teams do business another way. Either way, nothing is guaranteed whether you acquire your assets through players or through cash.
Who needs a stinkin' tag line? What are they for anyway?
by krummy12 on Dec 11, 2008 11:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Shouldnt we really be talking about Jake Peavy?
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 11:26 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Thank you! I'm glad someone
finally said something. This non-Peavy discussion is getting a little out of hand.
"Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living." ~Alvin Dark
by DamonBerryhillsMitt on Dec 11, 2008 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's been that way for a long time
If you read any baseball books about the 20’s or before there have been complaints about teams and especially the Yankees buying championships. I don’t expect that it will change anytime soon.
by rlpete on Dec 11, 2008 11:26 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
+1
Between 1947 and 1964, the Yankees won every AL pennant except three (two by Cleveland, one by the White Sox).
The only time baseball had real competitive balance was from the 70s through the early 90s, when teams like Oakland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City had perennial contenders and the Yankees sometimes came in last place.
by Jody Jody Davis on Dec 11, 2008 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
1981-1990
All 12 National League franchises and 11 of the existing 14 American League franchises made the playoffs at least once during those 10 seasons. Except for the 1981 strike-shortened season during that span (when eight teams made it), only four teams per season made the playoffs. The only teams that didn’t make the playoffs during that time were the Rangers, Mariners, and Indians.
In the past 10 seasons, 6 of the 30 MLB teams (Royals, Expos/Nationals, Blue Jays, Orioles, Pirates, and Reds) have not made a single postseason despite eight teams per season going to the postseason.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on Dec 11, 2008 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
However, said another way...
… 24 of the 30 teams HAVE made the postseason in the last ten seasons.
That’s pretty balanced.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Dec 11, 2008 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True, but...
If it were truly balanced, it would be possible for the Yankees to occasionally fall on hard times and finish in last place (as they did in 1990). I don’t see that happening any time soon.
by Jody Jody Davis on Dec 11, 2008 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The bottom line is the Yankees
have a shitload more cash to spend than other teams. ‘GN can’t come close to the dollars generated by YES. Even with revenue sharing (not the luxury tax IIRC) other teams simply don’t have the revenue streams that Yankees do. That doesn’t mean perennial contenders, it just means they have the cash to spend.
This is why the Cubs are doing those summer concerts at Wrigley. That revenue stream is not subject to MLB’s revenue sharing program; it’s pure profit.
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Dec 11, 2008 7:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not really...
Saying that a team has made it at least once in ten years isn’t a good measure of balance when there are multiple teams that have made the playoffs in 8 or 9 of the last 10 years.
by SouthernCub on Dec 12, 2008 9:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lesse...
The top three payrolls in MLB (Yanks, Tigers, Mets) spent October playing golf, and the second lowest payroll went to the Series. Hmmm… maybe you can’t buy a championship? Maybe payroll is a secondary factor, after things like making good trades, hiring good management, and playing solid ball.
Personally, I think there are just too many teams. Get rid of about six teams (regular season baseball in Florida? Bad idea, Bud!) and realign the leagues with 12 teams in three divisions. Institute a salary floor of $50 or $60 million and be done with it. Parity is mostly overrated; while I don’t want to see one team stink year after year after year (Pirates?), I also don’t want to see all eight teams in the playoffs change every year. Dynasties are good for the sport.
"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush! So what do you want?"
"What, so my choice is 'or death?' Well, then I'll have the chicken, please."
--Eddie Izzard
by znohitter on Dec 11, 2008 11:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I guess your study with a sample size of 4 is the definitive word then
A more interesting discussion of this can be found here.
Executive summary: while payroll isn’t the #1 highest determinant of winning, it is highly correlated with wins. Specifically, 18% of the variation of wins from team to team, year to year can be explained by salary alone.
So yeah, buying wins doesn’t guarantee you’ll get them, but it does make it considerably more likely.
by Wreckard on Dec 11, 2008 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Which helps explain why payrolls 4-8 did make the playoffs.
Yes, payroll has an effect on the team. But so do things like chemistry, prior experience, and the media, all of which are quite hard, if not impossible, to quantify. There are so many variables that anyone who thinks just throwing money at a team is guaranteed to get them into the post-season clearly deserves to be disappointed when it doesn’t koff*Steinbrenners*koff.
"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush! So what do you want?"
"What, so my choice is 'or death?' Well, then I'll have the chicken, please."
--Eddie Izzard
by znohitter on Dec 11, 2008 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot to throw in the Cubs
Yes they did play in October, if you want to call it that.
Second highest payroll in majors after the Yankees and did not even make it past the first round of the playoffs.
Hell getting swept is like not showing up!
Money can buy you some great names to help fill the seats, and be competitive, but a Championship is not guaranteed!
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy."
- Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton
by CubFreak on Dec 11, 2008 4:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ummm...
the Cubs were 7th in payroll last year.
NYY – $209M, DET – $138.7M, NYM – $138.3M, BOS – $133M, SUX – $121M, LAA – $119M, CHC – $118.59M, LAD – $118.53M, SEA – $117.9M, ATL – $102M.
"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush! So what do you want?"
"What, so my choice is 'or death?' Well, then I'll have the chicken, please."
--Eddie Izzard
by znohitter on Dec 11, 2008 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
this no not true
according to the MLB Players union, the Cubs were second when the season ENDED!
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy."
- Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton
by CubFreak on Dec 11, 2008 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You can haz link?
(And I couldn’t find anything dated after the season, so I really would like to know, net memes aside.)
"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush! So what do you want?"
"What, so my choice is 'or death?' Well, then I'll have the chicken, please."
--Eddie Izzard
by znohitter on Dec 11, 2008 5:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You ya go
Cubs payroll average second trailing only the Yankees
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy."
- Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton
by CubFreak on Dec 11, 2008 5:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah. I see.
Average salary would indicate taking total payroll and dividing by number of players on 25 man roster and DLs on Aug. 31, according to article. With the total number of players at 926 and assuming all 30 teams had their 25-man rosters full, that gives 176 on DLs. I suspect the difference in rankings between total payroll (the sum of all salaries) and average salary (total payroll divided by number of players on roster) is due to some teams (the Tigers and Mets, for instance) having more men on the DL than others (Cubs and Dodgers).
"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush! So what do you want?"
"What, so my choice is 'or death?' Well, then I'll have the chicken, please."
--Eddie Izzard
by znohitter on Dec 11, 2008 8:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Proof is in the pudding?
I never got that, what does that mean?
By the way;
what does (net meses aside) mean
I don’t get that either
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy."
- Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton
by CubFreak on Dec 11, 2008 6:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Proof is in the pudding: If you did a good job baking a pudding, it will taste good when you eat it.
Internet Memes: Hampster dance, YTMND.com, Chuck Norris facts, etc.
"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush! So what do you want?"
"What, so my choice is 'or death?' Well, then I'll have the chicken, please."
--Eddie Izzard
by znohitter on Dec 11, 2008 8:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Muchas Gracias!
That was actually very helpful
So you can see how the Cubs we’re in fact the second highest in payroll
As far as payroll, it might also mean that they are now paying more people today (Harden for example)
than when the season started. Harden was not on the team when the season started, hence the increase.
Also perhaps some teams might have some old debt, like contracts out there lingering.
For example, if the Cubs trade Marquis and pay for some of his salary, that’s added to to final figure.
Where on some sources only add the totals of the active roster, when in fact there is more money out there.
Botton line is, Cubs payroll was second.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy."
- Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton
by CubFreak on Dec 12, 2008 1:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
or....
have 2 leagues
one ‘elite’ league (top 14 or so)
one generic league (the rest)
play most games in-league
mets play yankees and dodgers
cubs play red sox a bunch
royals play pirates
top two bottom feeders join otherleague next season
create your schedule by how good you are
by tim815 on Dec 11, 2008 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
um what R U talkin bout Willis

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy."
- Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton
by CubFreak on Dec 11, 2008 5:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
two leagues
cubs
mets
yankees
dodgers
angels
white sox
braves
(and whichever up to 14
other league
(the other 16 teams)
after the season, the bottom two from the ‘elite’ division
get knocked down to the ‘pedestrian’ division
big money teams play big money teams mostly
lower rung teams play lower rung teams
so pittsburgh, kc, and others don’t play the yankees much
but don’t draw very well
excellence is rewarded by playing the big money teams that draw fans.
poor ownership groups play crummy teams
if you get good, you’ll play better competition.
and draw more fans in road games
let owners that don’t want to try lose their teams.
hope that explains it better.
by tim815 on Dec 11, 2008 7:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The same way some football (soccer) leagues are organized.
I like this idea, but it’s so against tradition that nobody would go for it. Nobody wants to be a second division team, and two of the tenets of modern American professional sports (or at least the MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL) are that you aren’t punished for performing poorly the previous year and the teams in the league don’t change on a yearly basis. But it works really well for the Football Association of England.
"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush! So what do you want?"
"What, so my choice is 'or death?' Well, then I'll have the chicken, please."
--Eddie Izzard
by znohitter on Dec 11, 2008 8:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure about that
It’s almost like the Majors vs the Minors?
What would the play off picture look like?
Sorry tim815 I know I’m slow but I just don’t get it
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy."
- Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton
by CubFreak on Dec 11, 2008 9:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I'm the only one annoyed by this then...
is it because we’re big market Cub fans and we’re biased? I’m sure you don’t hear New York baseball fans complaining about this…but I bet it’s different on Brew Crew ball, for instance.
Again, of course spending money guarantees nothing, but there’s no denying that doing so DRAMATICALLY improves your chances. The small market teams will rise temporarily, then fall to earth after a year or two once that window shuts. Not so for the big market teams. I know it’s been a problem in baseball for a long time- but I love it how in the NFL, for instance, you have no idea when the year starts who will contend for a Super Bowl. For many MLB teams, the season is over before it starts. In many cases, they have themselves to blame- but in some cases, I don’t think so. I heard the YES network, when combined with the Yankees, is worth 4 Billion. No wonder the Yanks never run out of money. You can’t tell me the Brewers, for instance, could pay Sabathia $160 million but simply choose not to. They just don’t have that kind of cash. It’s just not a level playing field, period, without a salary cap.
by reedjohnson on Dec 11, 2008 12:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It really only sucks for fans of the small market teams...
They’re the ones who suffer. Small market owners do okay due to revenue sharing and low payrolls. Big market owners and fans get the luxury of having more consistently competitive teams. For the most part, it’s the fans of the small market teams that lose out because their teams are competitive for titles less frequently.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2008 12:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
The Brewer’s offer (what was it $100M for 4 or 5 years) was incredible. They are the smallest of all 30 teams’ TV markets. Even if Wrigley North were at capacity + (say 105% like the ‘Hawks are this season), they’d have to have BoSox-like ticket prices to generate the cash flow to have a “Cubs-like” $140M+ payroll for 2009. Then you look at the Bronx and it could top a quarter-billion for 2009.
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Dec 11, 2008 7:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Keith Laws two cents
Mike(Chicago): When did the myth of the salary cap = parity begin? Why has it been so successfully sold to the masses? It’s the only area I know where the owners making more money and the workers less appeals to the masses.
Keith Law: (1:51 PM ET ) The mainstream media – and their lack of knowledge of economics – have been a critical component in selling that lie to the public.
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Dec 11, 2008 12:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
You have two choices.
1) Profits can go to the players.
2) Profits can go to the owners.
It’s really that simple.
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2008 10:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Here's the catch though
In baseball, the lowest percentage of profits go to the players of any sport.
The salary cap sports (football, hockey, basketball) give a higher percentage of their net back to the players.
by Wreckard on Dec 11, 2008 11:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just Cap what the top player can make.
This should make it like the old days, once your establish a connection with a young kid during the drafting/scouting period, he becomes part of the city and the fans have a real connection as they see the young kid turn into an old man and retires with the same team he came up with. Why do you think all those old time New Yorkers go crazy when they talk about “The Mick” or “Joltin Joe” and the old timer sawx fans talking about “Fisk” or “Ted Williams”
These salaries are out of control thus making it way too expensive for us common folks to go to games and buy team gear. Damn Jersey’s are close to a 100 bucks now. DAMN!
Limit teams to $10 million max for 3 players and $5-9 million for 5 players and then the rest of the team for the league minimum to 5 million or so. That would really change things, and the players would still have more money then they could spend in a lifetime for playing a childs game.
Something needs to be done, so many hard working Americans are busting their butts everyday and barely surviving and then guys like Manny Ramirez are upset because teams aren’t making offers to him so he threatens to retire. Come on, something is really wrong with this system
by MrShowtime on Dec 12, 2008 12:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sounds good but
The players association will NOT allow it!
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy."
- Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton
by CubFreak on Dec 12, 2008 1:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 




















