PDA

View Full Version : Great Stat Regarding Salary Cap



Pomp
02-19-04, 11:48 AM
MLB vs. NFL

In the past 20 years, there have been 12 different winners of the Super Bowl

In the past 20 years, there have been 14 different World Series Champions

Source: WEEI Boston.

By the way, many media members in Boston think John Henry's comments were ill-advised due to the Sox payroll.

RhodyYanksFan
02-19-04, 11:50 AM
From my Sox fan friends, it was not so much ill-advised, as bad timing.

Pedro's cuff
02-19-04, 11:52 AM
I think it was ill advised. It's like complaining about a guy living in a 10,000 sf house with a 4 car garage because you can only afford 8000 sq ft and a 3 car garage. poor form and yahooism.

CrazyNY
02-19-04, 12:02 PM
In the past 10 years, 9 teams have played in the World Series while 15 have played in the Super Bowl.

I think looking at what happened 20 years ago isn't really all that helpful, since the disparity has grown significantly greater since then.

Big_E
02-19-04, 12:21 PM
How's this:

Since expanding the post-season in 1995, the only teams not to make the playoffs are Toronto, Tampa Bay, Detroit, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Montreal, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh. 22 of 30 (73.3%) of the teams have made the playoffs in the last 9 seasons.

Go back 10 years and you can include Toronto and Philadelphia, which makes it 24 of 30, or 80%

Pretty darn good, I think, considering only 8 of 30 teams make the playoffs, as opposed to the NBA, NHL and NFL.

Expand the baseball playoffs to 12 teams like the NFL, and you will increase the chances of playoff upsets, and different teams making the World Series.

Hitman23
02-19-04, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by CrazyNY
In the past 10 years, 9 teams have played in the World Series I'll give you 2 teams because the 94 series didn't happen, but shouldn't that number be 18?? It would be kind of boring if only one team showed up..... :lol:

Big_E
02-19-04, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by CrazyNY
In the past 10 years, 9 teams have played in the World Series while 15 have played in the Super Bowl.

I think looking at what happened 20 years ago isn't really all that helpful, since the disparity has grown significantly greater since then.

The last 10 World Series' have seen 11 different teams, not 9:

1993: Philly vs Toronto
1994: No series
1995: Atlanta vs Cleveland
1996: Yankees vs Altanta
1997: Florida vs Cleveland
1998: Yankees vs SD
1999: Yankees vs Atlanta
2000: Yankees vs Mets
2001: Arizona vs Yankees
2002: Anaheim vs SF
2003: Florida vs Yankees

Philly, Toronto, Atlanta, Cleveland, Yankees, Florida, San Diego, Mets, Arizona, Anaheim, San Francisco. That's 11.

Hitman23
02-19-04, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
The last 10 World Series' have seen 11 different teams, not 9:ohhhh.... I see what he meant now. My bad.

CrazyNY
02-19-04, 12:39 PM
Well, I did say the last 10 years, not the last 10 series. But you're right--it's not a fair comparison that way. I wasn't really looking close enough when I counted it up. Sorry.

Anyway, do you really believe that each team in major league baseball has as realistic a shot at winning it all as teams in the NFL? Go to any of the NFL message boards and people from every team (with the likely exception of Arizona and Houston) are talking about how their team could go to the Super Bowl in the next year or two. Do you think you'd find the same thing on baseball message boards? Hope is a foreign concept to the majority of baseball fans. Baseball has become a pastime once again because people go to games merely to pass time.

I don't mean to suggest that this disparity between the leagues is entirely because of the financial structure--part of it is the nature of the game and, as Patriots fans can attest, the importance of coaching. But I do think the financial structure certainly helps to creat this hope for NFL fans.

NDBoston
02-19-04, 12:55 PM
The statistic dosen't work since the salary cap started in the NFL since the 1995 season.

The only teams to win the Super Bowl twice since then were the Broncos and the 2004 World Champion NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS!!!!

Sorry....it has to be done :lol:

The Yankees also have appeared in 6 of the last 8 of the World Series

Any team can win a 7 game series in baseball. It's the 162 game season, where the grind and injuries bring out the best teams.

I keep beating this point into the ground, but Regional Cable contracts have changed EVERYTHING.

When was the last time one team was able to spend 77 million more then the 2nd place team (Figure is payroll and luxury tax).

The gap has widened.

Big_E
02-19-04, 01:02 PM
But look what you get in the NFL:

2001: NE won the Super Bowl
2002: NE misses the playoffs
2003: NE won the Super Bowl.

2001: Baltimore wins 10 games
2002: Baltimore wins 7 games
2003: Baltimore wins 10 game

2001: Pittsburgh wins 13 games
2002: Pittsburgh wins 10 games
2003: Pittsburgh wins 6 games

2001: Oakland wins 10 games
2002: Oakland wins 11 games
2003: Oakland wins 4 games

2001: San Francisco wins 12 games
2002: San Francisco wins 10 games
2003: San Francisco wins 7 games

And on and on.
Consistency is disappearing from the NFL because of the hard cap. I'd rather see teams be able to keep their players and be consistent from year to year than have to constantly build and re-build

NDBoston
02-19-04, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
But look what you get in the NFL:


And on and on.
Consistency is disappearing from the NFL because of the hard cap. I'd rather see teams be able to keep their players and be consistent from year to year than have to constantly build and re-build

Hey!!! The Pats almost made the playoffs in 2002. :lol:

I'm not in favor of a hard cap, but I like the idea of a soft cap and a hard floor. ( some joke there I'm sure)

Bill James also has something on the splitting of Regional TV revenue. For the life of me I can't find it.

Hitman23
02-19-04, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
And on and on.
Consistency is disappearing from the NFL because of the hard cap. I'd rather see teams be able to keep their players and be consistent from year to year than have to constantly build and re-build exactly. What is wrong with a team putting together a championship caliber team and keeping it intact for longer then 1 year? The way salary cap people want it, a team wins and then that's enough. You got your win it's someone elses turn. Let's give someone else a chance. Everything has to be completely equal, and the smart teams get hurt. There's something else in this world that works the same way.... communism.

Pedro's cuff
02-19-04, 01:28 PM
The NFL punishes dumb financial and talent evaluation decisions, which is why Pittsburgh fell off and the Raiders completely bottomed out. The Patriots have won 11, 9, and 14 games in the last 3 years, missing the playoffs in 2002 because of a tiebreaker that wasn't decided until the 4PM game between the Jets and Packers in week 17. San Francisco hired Dennis Erickson as head coach, enough said there. Baltimore had an old team in 2001 and partially rebuilt in 2002. That's part of the process.

Pedro's cuff
02-19-04, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
There's something else in this world that works the same way.... communism.

The NFL equals communism? Take a look at the increase in franchise values over the last decade. I don't think so Thomas Paine. Smart teams keep winning. The ones that just throw money around(Redskins for example) get punished, as they should.

Hitman23
02-19-04, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Pedro's cuff
The NFL equals communism? Take a look at the increase in franchise values over the last decade. I don't think so Thomas Payne. Smart teams keep winning. The ones that just throw money around(Redskins for example) get punished, as they should. yes the owners of the teams get rich whether they win or lose while the players get capped while they do all the work. Kind of like the leaders of a communist nation and the people who live there.

But that's not my point. Teams can not hold a roster together very long especially if more then a few players become stars. They will not be allowed to pay to keep them, their team gets dismantled even if they can afford and are willing to do it, they can't. Sucks for the fans, sucks for the players, sucks for the city, but this is suppose to be good for the sport. bullsh*t.

CrazyNY
02-19-04, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
There's something else in this world that works the same way.... communism. And capitalism would result in many more teams in New York City, thus creating a greater division of the market and less revenue for the Yankees. Not allowing companies to move into a market such as New York sounds like communism (actually, a command economy). Don't pretend the Yankees aren't beneficiaries of the lack of pure capitalism in baseball.

Pedro's cuff
02-19-04, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
yes the owners of the teams get rich whether they win or lose while the players get capped while they do all the work. Kind of like the leaders of a communist nation and the people who live there.

But that's not my point. Teams can not hold a roster together very long especially if more then a few players become stars. They will not be allowed to pay to keep them, their team gets dismantled even if they can afford and are willing to do it, they can't. Sucks for the fans, sucks for the players, sucks for the city, but this is suppose to be good for the sport. bullsh*t.

Oh, the poor millionaire proletariat.:lol: The owners should be the only ones not to make a profit then? Okay comrade.

They could easily allow for the re-signing of home grown players through an exemption similar to what the NBA has. Any other issues?

Hitman23
02-19-04, 01:57 PM
Sorry you feel differently but I feel players should make as much as they possibly can for their services. There are approximately 800 people in this world worthy enough to play in MLB. That's why they are millionaires. If it was an easy job, plenty more people would do it and salaries would drop. So if someone is willing to pay someone $20 mil a season, then good for that player. I wouldn't want my job capped. If it was, when I got there I'd have no incentive to improve and get raises. Just because they are millionaires doesn't make them any different.

wileedog
02-19-04, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
But that's not my point. Teams can not hold a roster together very long especially if more then a few players become stars. They will not be allowed to pay to keep them, their team gets dismantled even if they can afford and are willing to do it, they can't. Sucks for the fans, sucks for the players, sucks for the city, but this is suppose to be good for the sport. bullsh*t.

What exactly do you think is happening just about everywhere but here in baseball now?

See Giambi: Jason.

Do you know how many teams could have afforded to keep Bernie, Jeter, Pettite, Mo and Posada together as long as we did?

Not one.

Pedro's cuff
02-19-04, 02:03 PM
They would still make as much as they possibly can for their services. Of course there is only so much revenue to go around, just like there is in any business. The point is once again: competition drives interest and interest creates more revenue. If the players have more options as far as where they can offer their services, isn't that also in their best interest?

Hitman23
02-19-04, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by wileedog
What exactly do you think is happening just about everywhere but here in baseball now?

See Giambi: Jason.

Do you know how many teams could have afforded to keep Bernie, Jeter, Pettite, Mo and Posada together as long as we did?

Not one. others can, they just choose not to. Oakland could have kept Giambi. 3 words..... "No Trade Clause"

Pedro's cuff
02-19-04, 02:35 PM
Of course,the other side of that argument is that Giambi still gets paid no matter where he plays and only a very limited number of teams could absorb a contract like that. Another example of the owners being to blame(sarcasm)...

brosiusbuddy
02-19-04, 03:50 PM
I bet Henry would suggest a salary cap of $125 million (Boston's current payroll). That guy is a baby.

NDBoston
02-19-04, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by brosiusbuddy
I bet Henry would suggest a salary cap of $125 million (Boston's current payroll). That guy is a baby.

:link:

knickfan23
02-20-04, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Pedro's cuff


The NFL equals communism? Take a look at the increase in franchise values over the last decade. I don't think so Thomas Paine. Smart teams keep winning. The ones that just throw money around(Redskins for example) get punished, as they should.


Redskins = LA Dodgers/Texas Rangers. Need i say more

The other point that is being missed is that in the NFL, they have setup the system to purposely help the worst team every year. For instance,

The worst team gets the following

1. #1 draft pick
2. Easier schedule
3. Higher draft position in every round

With that type of system, of course the bad teams are going to have a chance to get good. Take the Detroit Tigers under that system. Because of their bad record, they wouldnt face the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mariners and A's 6 times a year. Rather, they would play the Devil Rays, Rangers, Orioles, Indians, Royals and White Sox more times than they already do.

Baseball isnt setup that way, so of course the Tigers wont have much of chance for a long period. Also, unlike the NFL draft where the draftees can play immediately, the MLB draft takes 2 or 3 years to even figure out they can make the big league club. With a few bad drafts, your organization is in big trouble unless you can make smart free agent signings.

Pedro's cuff
02-20-04, 06:23 AM
.
Redskins = LA Dodgers/Texas Rangers. Need i say more

Actually, yes, if you could clarify that would be great.

And the issue here isn't drafting and how you schedule, it's about being at an economic disadvantage because of where you play. With the way the NFL schedule is set up, the last place team only plays 2 games against different opponents than the first place team anyway. The schedule isn't that heavily weighted since realignment a few years ago. baseball plays a much less balanced schedule than the NFL.


If you can't draft well, chances are that you can't make smart free agent signings either

Irabu's Son
02-20-04, 07:55 AM
I think it's only right that Boston sucks. After all, the Patriots are great. Fans in that area have SOMETHING to live for.

For me, it's the exact same but opposite sports. The Yankees give me loads and loads of joy, while the Giants make me want to put my head through a wall, week-in and week-out.

knickfan23
02-20-04, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Pedro's cuff
. Actually, yes, if you could clarify that would be great.


The Redskins, even with a salary cap, seem to have a bottomless pit of cash. Notice how they spend money on all these players and it seems to lead to nothing.

Chan Ho Park (65 million), Alex Rodriguez (252 million), Shawn Green (84 million), Kevin Brown (105 million), Darren Dreifort (55 million), Rusty Greer (21 million)

The total amount of those contracts add up to 582 million dollars.

Yikes.

Pedro's cuff
02-20-04, 10:18 AM
The Redskins are mortgaging their future for their present and the cap comes into play down the road. Big bonus up front and quickly escalating salaries over the course of those contracts will leave them with 10's of millions in dead money on their cap. The common thread there with the Rangers and Dodgers is bad personnel decisions. LA isn't a small market team. Texas is probably middle of the pack.

RedGlare
02-20-04, 10:31 AM
The creation of a hard cap in baseball would be the birth of the 'signing bonus'

Big_E
02-20-04, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Pedro's cuff
The Redskins are mortgaging their future for their present and the cap comes into play down the road. Big bonus up front and quickly escalating salaries over the course of those contracts will leave them with 10's of millions in dead money on their cap. The common thread there with the Rangers and Dodgers is bad personnel decisions. LA isn't a small market team. Texas is probably middle of the pack.

Arlington is considered part of the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area (considering it's BETWEEN the two cites).

That metropolitan area ranks 9th (Census Data (http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.txt)) in the US in terms of population. A large market...

Big_E
02-20-04, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by RedGlare
The creation of a hard cap in baseball would be the birth of the 'signing bonus'

Signing bonuses have been a part of baseball for a long time...

YankeePride1967
02-20-04, 10:40 AM
can someone explain to me why Cleveland is paying Philadelphia revenue sharing money?:confused:

Pedro's cuff
02-20-04, 10:51 AM
no, that's just wrong.

behindenemylines
02-20-04, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
exactly. What is wrong with a team putting together a championship caliber team and keeping it intact for longer then 1 year? The way salary cap people want it, a team wins and then that's enough. You got your win it's someone elses turn. Let's give someone else a chance. Everything has to be completely equal, and the smart teams get hurt. There's something else in this world that works the same way.... communism.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The NFL punishes success on the mistaken assumption that championships should be evenly distributed throughout the league. The resulting "parity" tightens the distribution of the bell curve, so to speak. By definition, as everyone approaches the mean, the result is mediocracy.

In what other profession should an employees salary be restricted? I know how I would feel if my boss said "Sorry, you have reached your salary limit, and since I own the only company where your skills are applicable, there's not a damn thing you can do about it." MLB and the NFL are the only places where baseball players and football players, respectively, can earn top dollar for their services, if they're good enough. To artificially restrict their earnings with a salary cap is one of the very things that anti-trust laws were created to prevent. Baseball and football need more free market competition, not socialism.

I propose a few changes to the system which seem radical but actually make the most sense:

1) Eliminate Baseball's anti-trust exemption. It was established to protect the owners and enslave the players, as evidenced by the reserve clause, which was so unfair that it was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court, despite the anti-trust exemption. Every team should be it's own corporate entity competing with every other team not just on the field, but in the business world as well- marketing, sales of hats, jerseys, etc. This would force poorly run teams to shape up, and would prevent teams from extorting new staiums from cities How many cities would pay for a new factory for IBM or build stores for Safeway unless they felt the employment opportunities would outweigh the costs?

2) Refine the system of revenue sharing. If MLB as a whole has money in the form of a TV contract, or you want to keep the luxary tax, make it mandatory that those dollars go to the club, player's salaries, improvemnts to the stadium, etc., instead of in the owners pockets.

3) One year contracts. Free agency hasn't harmed the game, the multi-year deal has. This would eliminate the need for arbitration, as a player who has just had a good year can demand whatever the market would bear and one with a bad year would be paid appropriately the following season instead of earning millions for multiple seasons where he's past his prime. In the long run, owners would probably save money with this structure.

4) Eliminate the distinction between leagues and let poorly run, poorly marketed, money losing teams go out of business. The AL and NL distinction is sort of meaningless now, anyway, especially with interleague play, with the eception of the DH rule, which most purists feel should be abolished anyway. Pitting the Yankees vs the Mets and White Sox vs. Cubs would be exciting, and it would happen more often if they all played in the same league. The division structure is fine, and could even be increased, thus increasing the number of teams that make the playoffs and allowing us to eliminate that stupid wild-card.

It's not etched in stone that Kansas City or Tampa Bay should have a baseball team, and bad decisions regarding expansion and team marketing shouldn't be the problem of the successful teams. If people don't come to the games, subscribe to the cable channel that your team is on, etc., then let it fold, like any other business. Streamline the whole league- one massive league (MLB) and six or eight divisions of four teams each (or five, depending how many teams fail or are created in more deserving markets).

what do you guys think?

Big_E
02-20-04, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by behindenemylines
3) One year contracts. Free agency hasn't harmed the game, the multi-year deal has. This would eliminate the need for arbitration, as a player who has just had a good year can demand whatever the market would bear and one with a bad year would be paid appropriately the following season instead of earning millions for multiple seasons where he's past his prime. In the long run, owners would probably save money with this structure.

I think this would cost MORE not less money. What would happen to salaries if you get a Soriano who has a decent rookie year, but then a killer sophomore campaign? If he goes 35 Homers, 110 RBI, .330 BA...instead of being able to renew his contract the first few seasons, he'd be a free agent able to demand A-Rod type money right away. It would mean that the so-called small market teams would lose their best players right away, rather than being able to keep them until they are FA eligible.

wileedog
02-20-04, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
others can, they just choose not to. Oakland could have kept Giambi. 3 words..... "No Trade Clause"

If Oakland signed Giambi to that contract and he got hurt or declined in skills, their franchise would be crippled for *years*. Plus with their uncertain revenue streams, there is no way they could guarantee they could pay him the life of the contract even if he did well. Thus they could not possibly afford to give him a no trade clause.

We didn't even blink at the notion.

They also had to let Tejada go so they could remotely think about affording Chavez, and they are going to have some hard decisions when the Big 3 hit FA time.

The fact of the matter is under the current system they cannot afford to keep a roster of homegrown players together for any length of time.

You know, like a Salary Cap system.

Hitman23
02-20-04, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by wileedog
Thus they could not possibly afford to give him a no trade clause.If the franchise was in that deep of trouble I'm sure they would have had no problem having him waive that clause with certain restrictions like him choosing the team. He just wanted security.

wileedog
02-20-04, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by behindenemylines


Couldn't have said it better myself. The NFL punishes success on the mistaken assumption that championships should be evenly distributed throughout the league. The resulting "parity" tightens the distribution of the bell curve, so to speak. By definition, as everyone approaches the mean, the result is mediocracy.
That's my number 1 concern with a cap. My biggest problem with the NFL is that the level of play has declined sharply.

Because of the money they make, high level draft picks *have* to be on the field ASAP. Most are not ready.

Furthermore, because of high personel turnover few teams get a chance to create real continuity, and football is bar FAR a more team-oreiented sport than baseball.

Add in the fact that talent is spread relatively evenly over 32 teams, and you get some real mediocrity.

This year's Patriots team would have its a$$ handed to it by the 80's Niners or 90's Cowboys.


Baseball and football need more free market competition, not socialism.
Baseball has it. Its not working.

The difference is that when Microsoft rules the computer OS world, it doesn't turn people off from buying a computer. The industry doesn't suffer (well, lack of competition does stagnate invention, IMO, but that's not the same).

When the Yankees are the undisputed best team in baseball year after year after year after year, people will just stop watching and it will kill the sport as a whole.


I propose a few changes to the system which seem radical but actually make the most sense:

1) Eliminate Baseball's anti-trust exemption. It was established to protect the owners and enslave the players, as evidenced by the reserve clause, which was so unfair that it was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court, despite the anti-trust exemption. Every team should be it's own corporate entity competing with every other team not just on the field, but in the business world as well- marketing, sales of hats, jerseys, etc. This would force poorly run teams to shape up, and would prevent teams from extorting new staiums from cities How many cities would pay for a new factory for IBM or build stores for Safeway unless they felt the employment opportunities would outweigh the costs?
Probably 10 teams would be out of business within 3 years. Also the league loses the right to control new team creation. Anybody with some money and a stadium could decide to create a ML team and declare themselves "in business".


2) Refine the system of revenue sharing. If MLB as a whole has money in the form of a TV contract, or you want to keep the luxary tax, make it mandatory that those dollars go to the club, player's salaries, improvemnts to the stadium, etc., instead of in the owners pockets.
Salary floor in imperative. But how do you enforce it?


3) One year contracts. Free agency hasn't harmed the game, the multi-year deal has. This would eliminate the need for arbitration, as a player who has just had a good year can demand whatever the market would bear and one with a bad year would be paid appropriately the following season instead of earning millions for multiple seasons where he's past his prime. In the long run, owners would probably save money with this structure.
Or just eliminate guaranteed contracts. Same thing, but more options. Also, with free agency players bounce around enough. Who wants to root for a team where just about anyone on it stands a good chance of not being there next year?

As Seinfeld put it, we're "rooting for laundry."


4) Eliminate the distinction between leagues and let poorly run, poorly marketed, money losing teams go out of business. The AL and NL distinction is sort of meaningless now, anyway, especially with interleague play, with the eception of the DH rule, which most purists feel should be abolished anyway. Pitting the Yankees vs the Mets and White Sox vs. Cubs would be exciting, and it would happen more often if they all played in the same league. The division structure is fine, and could even be increased, thus increasing the number of teams that make the playoffs and allowing us to eliminate that stupid wild-card./quote]
I'm sure you would be real excited about that plan if you were a lifelong Pirates fan.

[quote]It's not etched in stone that Kansas City or Tampa Bay should have a baseball team, and bad decisions regarding expansion and team marketing shouldn't be the problem of the successful teams. If people don't come to the games, subscribe to the cable channel that your team is on, etc., then let it fold, like any other business. Streamline the whole league- one massive league (MLB) and six or eight divisions of four teams each (or five, depending how many teams fail or are created in more deserving markets).

what do you guys think?

I think you'll have about 12 teams after 5 year or so of this system. And the Yanks will still have a ridiculous payroll advantage over all of them.

With a Cap you have a chance for 24-30 thriving teams, and a fanbase much more excited about Spring Training every year, when everyone has a chance. PLayers still make ludicrous amounts of money in the NFL and NBA, and the better the league does the more they will make.

I'm not trying to knock down something you've obviously put a lot of thought into, but this plan is extremely tilted towards the 'rich', and doesn't do anything to check any team, Yankees or otherwise, to win simply by spending.

The World Series should not be held every year to determine who has the best business plan.

Irabu's Son
02-20-04, 12:27 PM
In my opinion, there should be 16 teams just like way back when. 16 large markets, no salary cap. The Tampa Bays and Milwaukees that don't want to spend money.... well, see ya. Your cities and existing stadiums will make for fine AAA teams.

Radical, I know. Out of my mind? Of course. But there's too much diluted talent and too many garbage teams out there.

behindenemylines
02-20-04, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by wileedog

That's my number 1 concern with a cap. My biggest problem with the NFL is that the level of play has declined sharply.

Add in the fact that talent is spread relatively evenly over 32 teams, and you get some real mediocrity.

I agree




Originally posted by wileedog
Baseball has it. Its not working.

Baseball has too many socialist elements in it, which has led to failure not just in sports, but in governments throughout the world.

The difference is that when Microsoft rules the computer OS world, it doesn't turn people off from buying a computer. The industry doesn't suffer (well, lack of competition does stagnate invention, IMO, but that's not the same).


Originally posted by wileedog
When the Yankees are the undisputed best team in baseball year after year after year after year, people will just stop watching and it will kill the sport as a whole.

I don't think that's accurate, either. The Yankees have always been great, and there was a stretch there during the late forties and early fifties where it seemed that only New York teams were in the World Series, yet baseball was incredibly popular.



Originally posted by wileedog
Probably 10 teams would be out of business within 3 years. Also the league loses the right to control new team creation. Anybody with some money and a stadium could decide to create a ML team and declare themselves "in business".

I don't think that's so bad. Stop the subsidies. I'm in favor of contarction and opening up new, deserving markets.



Originally posted by wileedog
Salary floor in imperative. But how do you enforce it?

Don't know. I guess it would be harder than enforcing a cap. Also, it might be tough to tell an owner how to spend his money and then make him prove that he followed the rules.



Originally posted by wileedog
Or just eliminate guaranteed contracts. Same thing, but more options. Also, with free agency players bounce around enough. Who wants to root for a team where just about anyone on it stands a good chance of not being there next year?

I like that better than one year contracts. It would eliminate the Mo Vaughn and Albert Belle problem with long term deals, and reduce the chance of a rich team turning a smaller one into their farm system every year.



Originally posted by wileedog
I'm not trying to knock down something you've obviously put a lot of thought into, but this plan is extremely tilted towards the 'rich', and doesn't do anything to check any team, Yankees or otherwise, to win simply by spending.

I appreciate your ideas. There are still problems with my plan favoring the rich, but I think I was trying to make the game more fair, period, not simply more fair to the small market teams.

I heard an ida the other day which has been mentioned before (maybe on this board- I don't remember): Have a two or three tiered system like European Soccer, or even the NCAAs where smaller market teams can compete with each other and claim their own championships, with maybe even the chance to move up a tier if consistently successful. Leave the larger market teams, like the big Div. I schools, to their own league.

Just another thought.

behindenemylines
02-20-04, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Irabu's Son
In my opinion, there should be 16 teams just like way back when. 16 large markets, no salary cap. The Tampa Bays and Milwaukees that don't want to spend money.... well, see ya. Your cities and existing stadiums will make for fine AAA teams.

Radical, I know. Out of my mind? Of course. But there's too much diluted talent and too many garbage teams out there.

I agree. Many people have been saying that for years. I think Joe DiMaggio said something like that in an interview many years ago, even before the most recent expansion.

There's something wrong with a business model where a team expands to a city, like Miami, has success, but still can't draw a crowd, and then demands help from the more successful franchises. Would K-Mart ask a city to finance a new store, then do little to no advertising and expect Target to give them some of their profits? The whole Major League system of expansion, stadium building and salaries is so screwed up that well run teams, regartdless of their payroll, wind up suffering.