USN
Varsity
Posts: 951
|
Post by USN on Aug 4, 2006 16:46:24 GMT -5
Thing about baseball is, it has just as much parity as football, but without the salary cap. A different World Series winner in each of the past six seasons? Ten different teams in the Series during that span? Looks like parity to me.
Last year's World Series featured the White Sox (12th in total payroll) against the Astros (13th). In 2003, the Marlins ($54 million payroll) beat the Yankees ($164 million). Before the NHL lockout, the Tampa Bay Lightning ($40 million payroll) won the Stanley Cup, while the New York Rangers ($80 million) missed the playoffs
|
|
USN
Varsity
Posts: 951
|
Post by USN on Aug 4, 2006 16:48:45 GMT -5
|
|
McGahee
All-Conference
Raaraaraa It's A Boy
Posts: 3,684
|
Post by McGahee on Aug 4, 2006 21:49:27 GMT -5
Thing about baseball is, it has just as much parity as football, but without the salary cap. A different World Series winner in each of the past six seasons? Ten different teams in the Series during that span? Looks like parity to me. Except it's pretty much been the same contenders with a couple of other random teams thrown in once in a while. At least in football, a team can make the Super Bowl and not even make the playoffs the next year. You fail for trying to compare a league with a salary cap, and one with out one. The reason the Lightning appear to seem "a smaller market" is that they were just smart enough to maintain a good situation cap space-wise, so that they wouldn't overspend and be stuck in a jam (which happened to the Rangers... going all out like how the Sox and Yankees do in other sports proudes messes like the Knicks and Rangers). So it's really like the opposite in hockey compared to baseball. In hockey, it's the smart buyers that aren't over-aggressive when taking on salaries that succeed as opposed to in baseball, where those who keep handing out contract after contract gain the most success. And that baseball-football comparison you made is a bunch of crap. The duration of the seasons is the same. It might not be in terms of actual calendar days or games, but football players lay as much on the line in 1 game, as baseball players do in about 10. For the most part, the right teams make the playoffs in the NFL. The same goes for MLB (the ones with the highest payrolls...) |
|
Sportsbuck
All-Conference
I Love Gay Sex With Hot Men
Ohio State Buckeyes: 2010 National Champs
Posts: 4,932
|
Post by Sportsbuck on Aug 4, 2006 21:56:13 GMT -5
You can't even bring the NFL into an MLB topic.
There is much more parity year in and year out in the NFL than in the Majors.
|
|
USN
Varsity
Posts: 951
|
Post by USN on Aug 4, 2006 22:31:58 GMT -5
The cap enforces parity by law, which is great, I guess, if the memory of Trent Dilfer leading the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl victory brings a tear of nostalgia to your eyes. The cap robs the game of its truly memorable teams, making sure that there are enough holes in each of them that even the Patriots' "dynasty" will forever be followed by the words "in the salary cap era."
The cap creates a different power balance every year, but not by generously leveling the playing field between the haves and the have-nots. Basically, it destroys teams at random.
And I'll say this again..
People think of the NFL as having great races in which everyone has a chance, but there's simply a limit as to how much separation you can create in 15 weeks. If MLB played a 16-game season, you'd not only have tremendous races, but a lot more turnover. Add in six playoff spots per league, which lowers the bar for success, and you have a huge pileup between 9-7 and 7-9 that looks like a "great race," but is actually just a function of structure.
|
|
USN
Varsity
Posts: 951
|
Post by USN on Aug 4, 2006 22:51:27 GMT -5
I'll throw in this tidbit since 1995 when the playoffs expanded.. 22 of the 30 teams have made the playoffs at least once... two of those Toronto and Philly had played in the WS just years earlier under the old set-up
|
|
McGahee
All-Conference
Raaraaraa It's A Boy
Posts: 3,684
|
Post by McGahee on Aug 4, 2006 23:03:29 GMT -5
The cap enforces parity by law, which is great, I guess, if the memory of Trent Dilfer leading the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl victory brings a tear of nostalgia to your eyes. The cap robs the game of its truly memorable teams, making sure that there are enough holes in each of them that even the Patriots' "dynasty" will forever be followed by the words "in the salary cap era." The cap creates a different power balance every year, but not by generously leveling the playing field between the haves and the have-nots. Basically, it destroys teams at random. It doesn't destroy teams at random. It just stops teams from hogging all the talent as well as keeping the salaries somewhat reasonable. Stop bringing the NFL back in to this. Compare it to basketball and hockey, who have similar schedule structures to baseball (aka a hell of a lot of games) but have salary caps. Because there are so many playoff spots, a lot of the same teams are in every year (pretty much by default) but there's always plenty of buzz about new teams. Where's the buzz this year in baseball. You've got Detroit and that's it, which is 1/8 of the playoff teams. On the other hand, you had Milwaukee go from 1st pick to 1st round, the Clips go from lottery pick a million years running to 2nd round, LeBron make the playoffs and go to round 2, and then Memphis and the Lakers coming back. Sure the final four ended up being pretty much 4 of the top 6 or 7 teams, but even in hockey nobody could have predicted the final 4 teams... There's a reason the NFL is 16 games. It's because everyone knows that know matter how good the players are, they have to pour more on the line for those 16 games. In baseball, it's like "Oh well 0/3 today... better luck next time" but in the NFL, the equivalent to that would cost your team the game. I really don't know how to explain it any better. It seems like common sense to me. It's obvious that baseball is the only sport of the big 4 that could end up having the worst teams make the playoffs if they all had 16 game schedules, since so many players can have terrible games and still win. If the 3,5,7, and 9 hitter (4/9 of the lineup) all have a bad game in baseball, no biggie. But if Jason Kidd and Vince Carter have bad games (about 4/12 of the team when you factor in bench players as well) the Nets most likely lose. I'm doing my best to try and explain to you this simple concept. Baseball is a sport where you have such feeble opportunites, thus why they play so many games. Football is a sport where you have plentiful opportunities, thus why they play so little. That's why signing the big names that will get you the best production over the course of the year is so important in baseball, and if there's an infinite amount of money that's giong to be handed out, in 10 years you realize nothing good comes out of it, and now you've got a financial crisis... |
|
USN
Varsity
Posts: 951
|
Post by USN on Aug 4, 2006 23:33:37 GMT -5
The NHL applies the same as the NFL to MLB because they would have the same type of cap. A "hard" cap. The MLB would not institute a "soft" cap as the NBA has. The difference being.. the "hard" cap doesn't allow for teams to exceed the cap. A "soft" cap does allow for this.. which is the highest payroll of the New York Knicks is way over the cap.
The New York Knicks... don't they have the highest payroll in their sport? Shouldn't they be winning left and right? According to you.. yes. BUT NO!
Anyways.. you're concern about the MLB salaries. You start young and cheap, and you either become older and expensive, or just older. There are plenty of team owners who don't want to spend more on players than they absolutely have to pay them. This would be especially true if revenue sharing increased enough to guarantee a profit for every team in the league.
Remember what we know about the distribution of talent in major league baseball: it's the right end of a bell curve, with a few great players at the extreme, more players with good talent towards the middle, and a near-endless supply of free, or replacement-level, talent. It's taken some time, but teams are beginning to recognize this.
|
|
McGahee
All-Conference
Raaraaraa It's A Boy
Posts: 3,684
|
Post by McGahee on Aug 5, 2006 7:40:53 GMT -5
The NHL applies the same as the NFL to MLB because they would have the same type of cap. A "hard" cap. The MLB would not institute a "soft" cap as the NBA has. The difference being.. the "hard" cap doesn't allow for teams to exceed the cap. A "soft" cap does allow for this.. which is the highest payroll of the New York Knicks is way over the cap. The New York Knicks... don't they have the highest payroll in their sport? Shouldn't they be winning left and right? According to you.. yes. BUT NO! Anyways.. you're concern about the MLB salaries. You start young and cheap, and you either become older and expensive, or just older. There are plenty of team owners who don't want to spend more on players than they absolutely have to pay them. This would be especially true if revenue sharing increased enough to guarantee a profit for every team in the league. Remember what we know about the distribution of talent in major league baseball: it's the right end of a bell curve, with a few great players at the extreme, more players with good talent towards the middle, and a near-endless supply of free, or replacement-level, talent. It's taken some time, but teams are beginning to recognize this. You make it seem like NBA teams can buy whatever free agent they like. Sure, you can put on more salaries and be above the cap, but there's a reason that they weren't able to sign any top free agents they'd like, like how they do it in baseball. The reason New York's payroll is so high is because in addition to Isaiah overpaying severly undeserving players, he also traded for these overpaid guys as well. |
|
Sportsbuck
All-Conference
I Love Gay Sex With Hot Men
Ohio State Buckeyes: 2010 National Champs
Posts: 4,932
|
Post by Sportsbuck on Aug 5, 2006 10:10:51 GMT -5
The cap enforces parity by law, which is great, I guess, if the memory of Trent Dilfer leading the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl victory brings a tear of nostalgia to your eyes. The cap robs the game of its truly memorable teams, making sure that there are enough holes in each of them that even the Patriots' "dynasty" will forever be followed by the words "in the salary cap era." If a team is truly memorable, then they can win with a cap in place. The reason they put "In the Salary Cap era" is because it is that much more impressive because of the Cap. |
|
USN
Varsity
Posts: 951
|
Post by USN on Aug 5, 2006 10:14:24 GMT -5
Think, for a moment, about what would have happened to the 49ers of the '80s under the current system.
Sorry, Ronnie Lott - we can't afford to keep you. Just business, you understand, but have fun playing for the Panthers. Too bad, Steve Young - you don't fit into our budget. Good luck with the Jets, and we'll remember to go 4-12 next time Montana gets hurt. Adios, John Taylor - the Lions need a second receiver, and we're prohibited from offering you even half as much as they will.
The stuff of legends, huh?
The truth is, a salary cap causes you to lose just as many players to higher bidders as a free-for-all capless market would. The only difference is that under the current system, it doesn't even matter who's bidding against you for your top-notch players. They're just gone.
|
|
Loki
All-Conference
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Loki on Aug 5, 2006 11:09:31 GMT -5
The cap enforces parity by law, which is great, I guess, if the memory of Trent Dilfer leading the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl victory brings a tear of nostalgia to your eyes. The cap robs the game of its truly memorable teams, making sure that there are enough holes in each of them that even the Patriots' "dynasty" will forever be followed by the words "in the salary cap era." If a team is truly memorable, then they can win with a cap in place. The reason they put "In the Salary Cap era" is because it is that much more impressive because of the Cap. Wouldn't it be more impressive to be let's say...the #15th highest payroll team and you overcome someone with a ridiculous $300 million payroll? That you have the average to above average players and yet you still took down who was supposed to be Goliath to your David. |
|
McGahee
All-Conference
Raaraaraa It's A Boy
Posts: 3,684
|
Post by McGahee on Aug 5, 2006 14:30:10 GMT -5
If a team is truly memorable, then they can win with a cap in place. The reason they put "In the Salary Cap era" is because it is that much more impressive because of the Cap. Wouldn't it be more impressive to be let's say...the #15th highest payroll team and you overcome someone with a ridiculous $300 million payroll? That you have the average to above average players and yet you still took down who was supposed to be Goliath to your David. I think he was referring to having a dynasty in the salary cap era (and if he wasn't then in that case you're hypothetical is better) but when a team with a middle-of-the-line payroll wins a championship, they don't have a chance at having a dynasty unless they immediately increase payroll, or at least that's what teams like the White Sox, Red Sox, and Yankees all did once they won their championship... |
|
|
|
Post by dkgojackets on Aug 5, 2006 20:01:38 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be more impressive to be let's say...the #15th highest payroll team and you overcome someone with a ridiculous $300 million payroll? That you have the average to above average players and yet you still took down who was supposed to be Goliath to your David. I just watched my 2003 World Series DVDs and yes, it was impressive. I did my senior exit paper on this topic and through my voluminous amounts of research concluded that you don't need a cap, but should have a floor. Then again, Florida and their sub-$15 mil payroll is right in the middle of the NL Wild Card race this year. What teams really need is better scouting and more intelligent spending. Its all about money management. |
|
bearcat
All-Conference
Posts: 3,276
|
Post by bearcat on Aug 28, 2006 10:47:16 GMT -5
Virtually everyone is in the NL wildcard race.  But yeah, I'll expand on what david is saying. The minor leagues are what drives the small-market clubs. Teams have to choose where their money goes. Obviously, the Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, teams with high payrolls. Then Florida, Kansas City, Minnesota, teams with smaller payrolls. The upper end teams choose to put their money into veterans, while the lower teams have put their money into the minor leagues. You know why you almost never hear about many Yankees prospects? One, because all of their spending on pricey free agents, but mainly, the lack of a strong farm system. I know, we've seen guys like Cano and Philip Hughes, but that's all that I've heard of, at least. It's all about where you choose to put your money is what direction you will take. Fans have something to do with it too. I know Yanks and Red Sox fans demand winning now, and ownership will do what it takes to put fans in the stands. Low-market clubs can afford to be more patient, since they have put their money into the farm system, and developing from within. |
|
|
|
Post by dkgojackets on Aug 28, 2006 13:49:46 GMT -5
I would like to point out that Florida is currently only 3 games out of the Wild Card. This with a payroll under $15 million. Around a dozen players make over that.
|
|
|
|
Post by detroitbasketball on Aug 28, 2006 14:40:36 GMT -5
You know why you almost never hear about many Yankees prospects? One, because all of their spending on pricey free agents, but mainly, the lack of a strong farm system. I know, we've seen guys like Cano and Philip Hughes, but that's all that I've heard of, at least. The other, perhaps bigger reason you never hear about Yankee prospects is cause the Yanks are always trading them for proven veteran talent. Really I think the model organization here is the Red Sox. Trot Nixon, Kevin Youkilis, Craig Hansen, Jon Papelbon, and Jon Lester are among the young homegrown talent on that team. They also acquired Jason Varitek when he was just a prospect, and have also drafted top prospects such as Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez, players whom they traded for Josh Beckett. All this young talent while they still spend money on players like Curt Schilling, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. It's a winning combo, but they just aren't winning. Go figure. |
|
