Triumph Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 (edited) For the same reason the NHL needed a cap: because a good number of the owners can't afford to spend as much as the Yankees and the other big spenders do. there is far more money floating around in baseball than there is in hockey. the stadiums are bigger, there's twice as many games, the television deal is much larger, and so on and so forth. somehow teams like kansas city and florida escape scrutiny for being terrible - they're terrible not because of the big bad yankees but because they don't know how to run a baseball team. just look at hockey as a perfect example: edmonton. cried about how they couldn't compete. now they can, financially. guess what - they're awful. they make terrible decisions in the draft, in free agency, and in trades. level playing field - same result. i would expect most of baseball to be the same way. also this entire discussion has ignored the fact that there is a luxury tax in baseball which certainly curbs the yankees' spending. Edited October 17, 2009 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroGravityFat Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 The cap is a joke, Yankees just pay a little more than Boston to take the player, if there were a cap, Yankees would just pay the top amount they can, and the player would want to go play there for the prospect of playing there and the better shot at the prize. Nothing would change. Overall, Yankees would thank the league for a cap so they don't have to pay as much but still make the same revenue, making them the richest sh!t since Alexander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DH26 Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 For the same reason the NHL needed a cap: because a good number of the owners can't afford to spend as much as the Yankees and the other big spenders do. there are also a lot of owners like Pohlad before he died in Minnesota who are much much richer than the Steinbrenners who don't want to spend any of their money and pocket the revenue sharing dollars. It's not like the little guys can't compete. Last Tampa was in the world series with something like a $30 or $40 million dollar payroll while the yankees $220 mil one was sitting at home. If you want all teams to compete, the cap would have to be something like $60 million which could never happen then A-Rod and Jeter would be almost the entire thing and the baseball union, by FAR the most powerful in sports and one of the most powerful in the country, will never let anything like that happen. The system's never going to change short of the sport coming apart like the NHL, but it won't happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 (edited) any discussion of baseball that does not include just how much luck there is in the playoffs isn't one worth having. the yankees' expectation over the last 8 years is not 0 titles given their regular season winning records, just as it wasn't 4 titles in 6 years in the 1990s. that's not to say the yankees have spent their money intelligently. but free agency in ALL SPORTS is a gamble, especially in baseball with pitchers, who are probably more prone to injury/sudden dropoff in performance than any player in a sport with guaranteed contracts. It isn't a gamble to the Yankees, who just went after other pitchers when the first 5-6 didn't work out. Some teams get one chance at a pitcher. If a smaller market team went after Pavano, they would be fvcked. the problem is with the other teams, not the yankees, in this regard. 'there needs to be a cap in place'? why? why is that necessary? you just say that it is. for what, competitive balance? this assumes that the whole of baseball doesn't benefit from the yankees being awesome, which is a lie, it most certainly does. i am not convinced that baseball would benefit from a salary cap, i'm really not. that isn't to say that my sense of justice or fair play loves the way that baseball is set up, because it doesn't. but viewing baseball as a for-profit business, which it very clearly is for most of the owners involved, i'm just not sure that's the case. I think only having 4 teams making the playoffs doesn't help either. That with the salary cap makes for a lot of dead franchises. How long have the Pirates been terrible? The Royals? The Reds? The Expos/Nationals. All those teams could have been way out of the gutter if they had a chance to keep their free agents. You mentioned the Rays showing you can win without money. Well, eventually 8-10 bottom 3 finishes will get you enough talent, but most teams again can't sign the guys who are supposed to be slotted where they pick. I think a rookie cap makes the most sense in baseball, because so many of these players are crapshoots more than any other sport. "Hey, it's an 18-year-old with a 96 MPH fastball. He has to be drafted first overall. He threw 5 straight no hitters." it would not have been a smart thing to do. even the yankees don't have limitless payroll. having cc + hughes >>> trading for santana. Oh the Yankees easily could have done it. Santana got 7/150 which is $21.42 million a year. Burnett got 5/82 which is $16.4 million. You don't think they could have given Santana (who is 5x the pitcher Burnett is) $5 million more a season, especially when they had already trimmed their payroll? Edited October 17, 2009 by devilsrule33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainScotty Posted October 17, 2009 Author Share Posted October 17, 2009 wow, this has spiraled out of control... I started this thread because the yankee contingent is so pervasive, true fan or not, I can't even watch a hockey game in the city. I mean seriously, its baseball. most of the time its 3 guys moving, sometimes only 2. I think there are games out there where the plate umpire gets a better workout than right field. And these guys make how many millions? I will give it this, there are way more opportunities to sip your beer and bitch and moan about the dow in baseball than hockey. maybe thats why its popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Baseball? Shouldn't this be in the AARP thread someplace other than HELL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 (edited) but the Mets didn't make the playoffs even with Santana pitching brilliantly Did you forget about all of those players injured? EDIT: my bad mouse, i didn't realize you were talking about last year. But even still, the Mets had an awful bullpen which is the main reason they didn't make it last year. I'm not trying to make an excuse either, it really was awful. When you have Brian Stokes setting up Luis Ayala, something is clearly wrong. and now it looks like they won't be going anywhere near the playoffs for the next few years, partially because they have a bunch of old players and no farm system. This quote is hilarious. First - I mean there really is no point of going through the farm system since you don't know anything about it, but its certainly not one of the worst in baseball. Its more or less middle of the pack. Second - what are you talking about? The Mets have been a playoff CALIBER team the past 3 of the 4 seasons (2006, 2007, 2008), okay so they did choke away their playoff hopes in both 2007/2008 but that doesn't take away from the fact they were playoff-caliber. This year they didn't make the playoffs because they were decimated with injuries. Seriously, decimated. The team was in first place by a few games when the injuries began to occur. I'm not saying they would have made it or not, but they would certainly be in the mix at the least. Also, where are these "bunch of old players" you speak of? Castillo is old but his contract will be up soon.. but where are these other old players? And please don't tell 30 or 31 is old.... The Yankees have their fair share of old guys, But they have some good young guys on the roster (Cano, Cabrera, Hughes), a lot of fill in types in AAA (Cervelli being the big one this year), and a good group of prospects, led by Austin Jackson to keep pushing the vets. Austin Jackson meet Fernando Martinez. Francisco Cervelli meet Josh Thole. Big deal. Again I'm not gonna debate who has a better farm system, but you are making it like the Mets' system is terrible, which is flat out wrong. The Mets gave that up for Santana. Yes, Carlos Gomez has issues, but he would have been damn useful on the Mets this year. Again - what? Carlos Gomez? You mean the guy who, offensivley, was worth 8 runs below replacement level? Yeah.. really could have used him. The Twins were smart enough to get decent returns when they had to trade Santana. The Yankees were smart enough to wait on C.C. and keep their youth movement intact. The Mets gave up nothing for Santana. Humber is minor league free agent, Mulvey got deal to Arizona, Gomez is awful. Deolis Guerra is the only guy that might pan out into something, but even if he does, it won't make the deal look any better for the Twins. Edited October 17, 2009 by nmigliore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouse Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I think only having 4 teams making the playoffs doesn't help either. That with the salary cap makes for a lot of dead franchises. How long have the Pirates been terrible? The Royals? The Reds? The Expos/Nationals. All those teams could have been way out of the gutter if they had a chance to keep their free agents. You mentioned the Rays showing you can win without money. Well, eventually 8-10 bottom 3 finishes will get you enough talent, but most teams again can't sign the guys who are supposed to be slotted where they pick. I think a rookie cap makes the most sense in baseball, because so many of these players are crapshoots more than any other sport. "Hey, it's an 18-year-old with a 96 MPH fastball. He has to be drafted first overall. He threw 5 straight no hitters." The Pirates are idiots. They kept Van Slyke over Bonds, and since then they've drafted badly, signed bad players, and traded good ones. Royals, Reds and Expos/Nats are terrible as well. The Twins spend nothing and are in the playoffs all the time. Same for the As with Billy Beane. The Marlins have sold all their and recovered twice because of good scouting. Is it easier to eat your mistakes when you have money? Yes. Is that the only reason certain franchises are more successful than others? Hell no. The Phillies have been spending more money since they started winning and sold more tickets. They started winning when they spent more. Money is an easy excuse for losing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJayDevil Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I just had to start this thread to basically express my utter hatred for just anything Yankeedom. I've put up with the snobby fans, the incessant barrage of clothing and knickknacks everywhere I go, but tonight is the last straw. It is a virtual blackout in NYC with the yankee game. I went to 5 bars, 3 of which had 9(!) screens, and I could not get one lousy bar to put the devils game on. I totally understand the devils aren't as popular, but just within the 6 blocks around me (at 49th street), you have a staggering 50 screens to view the game. And not one will tune to the devils game. this only encourages the bandwagon fanbase the yankees have. Screw em, I hope they get obliterated, and I dont even know who they are playing. You're going to have the same problem tonight. Go up to Boston for the night, I bet you can get the Devils game on there tonight. GO YANKEES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 My first response to this thread is at Triumph. Look, I appreciate you're a logical guy, but I think it's best to save that argument against Yankee haters like myself. I don't care if they could compete if they had to rely on their farm system. The fact is that they spend more than any other team by a wide margin. That being said, I don't want to see a hard salary cap. Every good story needs a villain, and the Yankees play that role very well in the tale that is a baseball season. They are the team that's fun to hate, and I don't want to ever see that change. This decade has been a magical one. From the many first-round exits to the Diamondbacks to the Marlins to a true gift -- 2004 choke. If they happen to win it this year, I will look back on what has been a golden decade for Yankee haters with fond memories. They can't take it away from us. In the meantime, the Yankees can take those queer earflap caps and shove them up their asses. Go Angels, my favorite team! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 (edited) It isn't a gamble to the Yankees, who just went after other pitchers when the first 5-6 didn't work out. Some teams get one chance at a pitcher. If a smaller market team went after Pavano, they would be fvcked. those teams should be getting 0 chances at a pitcher. signing almost any starting pitcher is a priori a bad move. I think only having 4 teams making the playoffs doesn't help either. That with the salary cap makes for a lot of dead franchises. How long have the Pirates been terrible? The Royals? The Reds? The Expos/Nationals. All those teams could have been way out of the gutter if they had a chance to keep their free agents. You mentioned the Rays showing you can win without money. Well, eventually 8-10 bottom 3 finishes will get you enough talent, but most teams again can't sign the guys who are supposed to be slotted where they pick. I think a rookie cap makes the most sense in baseball, because so many of these players are crapshoots more than any other sport. "Hey, it's an 18-year-old with a 96 MPH fastball. He has to be drafted first overall. He threw 5 straight no hitters." the pirates, royals, reds, and expos/nationals are all TERRIBLY run. they make AWFUL decisions. they all DESERVE to be terrible, it has nothing to do with big-market teams sucking up their talent because they don't have any talent besides a few players. it's not like long runs of futility were uncommon before the end of the reserve clause - the phillies were terrible for pretty much 40 years from 1920 to 1960, for example. these teams don't deserve a break. their fans do, and for them, it sucks. but these teams make unjustified decision on top of unjustified decision. the astros look like they're headed that way too. those teams do not understand what makes a baseball team win. the pirates finally have a sabermetric GM who will get the pirates some respectability in 2 or 3 years. if you make terrible decisions in a sport with or without a salary cap, your team will suffer. the pirates, royals, reds, and expos/natioanls would be terrible with or without a salary cap, with or without revenue sharing. they deserve to be awful. Oh the Yankees easily could have done it. Santana got 7/150 which is $21.42 million a year. Burnett got 5/82 which is $16.4 million. You don't think they could have given Santana (who is 5x the pitcher Burnett is) $5 million more a season, especially when they had already trimmed their payroll? santana got that because he didn't go on the open market - it's possible he didn't want to come to the yankees (although not particularly likely). hughes + burnett is probably around equal to santana, much as you would disagree. Edited October 17, 2009 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 also this entire discussion has ignored the fact that there is a luxury tax in baseball which certainly curbs the yankees' spending. Does it? Or do they simply spend what they would have spent without the luxury tax and consider the tax a cost of doing business? Is there any evidence that the luxury tax has done anything to the Yankees' payroll? You were just calling out all the other owners for not being willing to blow their salary structures out of place in pursuit of the top free agents, but now you're claiming that if there were no luxury tax, the Yankees would be spending even more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Flenderson: HR Rep Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 anaheim wanted him too. If he'd gone there, everyone would just say what a coup it was for the Angels, but for the Yankees it's about buying a championship. If you've got the money, spend it Actually Milwaukee was trying the best they could to re sign Sabathia. Bob Melvin, the GM of the very small market Brewers, offered Sabathia a multi year deal close to 100 mill., which is amazing. The Yankees then blew him out of the water with a multi year offer of 161 mill. Milwaukee could not match it. That's great scouting and negotiating by the great Yankees. The Yankees buying championships is very unimpressive. They better win the World Series or I'm gonna have a filed day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 The Yankees buying championships is very unimpressive. They better win the World Series or I'm gonna have a filed day. You're giving the Yankees too much credit. They haven't bought any championships in recent years. They've bought plenty of playoff spots though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Does it? Or do they simply spend what they would have spent without the luxury tax and consider the tax a cost of doing business? Is there any evidence that the luxury tax has done anything to the Yankees' payroll? You were just calling out all the other owners for not being willing to blow their salary structures out of place in pursuit of the top free agents, but now you're claiming that if there were no luxury tax, the Yankees would be spending even more? i'm not calling out the owners of teams that spend, i am calling out teams that do not - that pocket the revenue sharing and don't do anything with it. there needs to be a salary floor much more than there does a salary cap in baseball. is there evidence? of course there's not definitive evidence, you're asking me to prove that i have access to the yankees' finances. it is theorized that the luxury tax kept the yankees from signing carlos beltran when he was a free agent. Actually Milwaukee was trying the best they could to re sign Sabathia. Bob Melvin, the GM of the very small market Brewers, offered Sabathia a multi year deal close to 100 mill., which is amazing. The Yankees then blew him out of the water with a multi year offer of 161 mill. Milwaukee could not match it. That's great scouting and negotiating by the great Yankees. The Yankees buying championships is very unimpressive. They better win the World Series or I'm gonna have a filed day. lol at all of this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Grabbed this off of Wikipedia.. link "As a positive, only twice in the past 30 years has a team won the World Series with a $100 million plus payroll: the 2007 Red Sox and 2001 Yankees according to Joe Posnanski's December 2008 SI.com blog, which was addressed by Peter Gammons in a January 2009 espn.com article. In those 30 years, 20 different teams have won World Series titles, compared to 14 different teams winning the NFL Super Bowl, 13 winning the NHL Stanley Cup and nine winning the NBA championship. While a top tier payroll increases the likeliness of making the playoffs, it does not result in teams consistently winning championships." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 While a top tier payroll increases the likeliness of making the playoffs, it does not result in teams consistently winning championships." Yes, it certainly appears to be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallidevils Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 the problem is with the other teams, not the yankees, in this regard. 'there needs to be a cap in place'? why? why is that necessary? you just say that it is. for what, competitive balance? this assumes that the whole of baseball doesn't benefit from the yankees being awesome, which is a lie, it most certainly does. i am not convinced that baseball would benefit from a salary cap, i'm really not. that isn't to say that my sense of justice or fair play loves the way that baseball is set up, because it doesn't. but viewing baseball as a for-profit business, which it very clearly is for most of the owners involved, i'm just not sure that's the case. People really let this post slide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 People really let this post slide? we all know you don't have the logical chops to dispute it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallidevils Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 we all know you don't have the logical chops to dispute it i like how you honorably state your justice and fair play ideals and then go on to say baseball wouldnt benefit from a salary cap and that other teams are at fault Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainScotty Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 People really let this post slide? The quote from Triumph sounds a lot like "we should let the rangers win because they are the most important market". Guess we should lay down and let the rags take it all, its for the game of hockey after all eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallidevils Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 trying to argue with a yankee fan who thinks that the yankees having twice the salary of anyone else is good for baseball is like arguing with someone who thinks the sky is green. of course it's wrong but someone who actually thinks that, isn't going to actually see reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 (edited) trying to argue with a yankee fan who thinks that the yankees having twice the salary of anyone else is good for baseball is like arguing with someone who thinks the sky is green. of course it's wrong but someone who actually thinks that, isn't going to actually see reason. the yankees, in their present incarnation, are good for 'baseball', if baseball is conceived of as a for-profit enterprise. one of the most difficult things when considering what is just in professional sports are the dual motives of profit and winning. separating the two is healthy. profit-wise, yes it's good, equal-playing-field wise, no, it's not. how to reconcile the two is difficult. what i'm trying to make clear is that the reds, nationals etc. should NOT be an example of 'boo hoo the yankees are terrible for baseball' because those teams continually throw money down a hole. i have absolutely no sympathy for idiotic franchises in any sport. the a's - okay, now you're talking. Edited October 18, 2009 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 i'm not calling out the owners of teams that spend, i am calling out teams that do not - that pocket the revenue sharing and don't do anything with it. there needs to be a salary floor much more than there does a salary cap in baseball. Uh, yeah, that's what I said, you were calling out the team that didn't spend. You're still assuming that every team has the wherewithal to carry a Yankee-esque payroll; the problem with that, even if your supposition was correct, is that not every player out there deserves the amount of jack the Yankees are paying out. And I knew you'd eventually call for a salary floor; hell, I would have bet money on it had I been given the chance. Whaddaya wanna make it? $100 million? Only 9 teams have 9-digit payrolls. $80 million? That's just about the median payroll, average is about $88.5 million. is there evidence? of course there's not definitive evidence, you're asking me to prove that i have access to the yankees' finances. it is theorized that the luxury tax kept the yankees from signing carlos beltran when he was a free agent. Frankly, the luxury tax is anemic. It's only ever hit 4 teams in its history (Yankees x6, Red Sox x4, Angels x1, and Tigers x1), and this year it looks like the Yankees will be the only team to get hit. The threshold needs to be dropped drastically, maybe to $100 million. And the Yanks didn't suddenly get frugal with the advent of the luxury tax. If anything, they ramped it up when the luxury tax started as a middle finger to the rest of the league. Here's some numbers for you, going back to 1996, the beginning of the mini-dynasty: Sources: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081222&content_id=3726222&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1805&Itemid=41 http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 (edited) Uh, yeah, that's what I said, you were calling out the team that didn't spend. You're still assuming that every team has the wherewithal to carry a Yankee-esque payroll; the problem with that, even if your supposition was correct, is that not every player out there deserves the amount of jack the Yankees are paying out. And I knew you'd eventually call for a salary floor; hell, I would have bet money on it had I been given the chance. Whaddaya wanna make it? $100 million? Only 9 teams have 9-digit payrolls. $80 million? That's just about the median payroll, average is about $88.5 million. $70 million seems like a fair number. if you have a salary cap, you absolutely have to have a salary floor. which is funny because it makes both the top teams and lower teams oppose a salary cap. Frankly, the luxury tax is anemic. It's only ever hit 4 teams in its history (Yankees x6, Red Sox x4, Angels x1, and Tigers x1), and this year it looks like the Yankees will be the only team to get hit. The threshold needs to be dropped drastically, maybe to $100 million.And the Yanks didn't suddenly get frugal with the advent of the luxury tax. If anything, they ramped it up when the luxury tax started as a middle finger to the rest of the league. Here's some numbers for you, going back to 1996, the beginning of the mini-dynasty: Sources: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081222&content_id=3726222&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1805&Itemid=41 http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx why? do you give any rationale at all for what you're saying? so for being a terrible baseball team that can't draw at all because they're terrible, the washington nationals should just get more money because they have no idea what they are doing to give them a level playing field which they will also fvck up? baseball isn't like hockey - the TV deal is huge, and in just about every city, success will draw ticket sales and spending. furthermore, some teams just pocket the revenue sharing, they don't have to spend it on players or the organization, which is a joke. obviously the yankees continued to increase spending, but you do see that if they didn't have the luxury tax they would be spending that money on players, right? Edited October 18, 2009 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.