Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 57
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    I.E
    Posts
    1,047
    vCash
    1500
    I can't remember who but a mod here said we wouldn't get more then 5 or 6 billion. That we weren't bigger then the Yankees and we couldn't make more then the Yankees hmmm.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    9,960
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    It's curtailed the Yankees to some extent and even with all tv money both teams will make over the next 25 years, it will probably do the same to the Dodgers at some point too.
    So the whole point was to create a disadvantage for like 3 teams? No it was for the bottom dwellers like the Marlins and Pirates to be able to keep their players, instead it went into their pockets and towards new stadiums, if it's not going to do it's intended purpose why keep it around?
    Quote Originally Posted by Greedy22 View Post
    Because $100 million to you guys is chump change

    In all seriousness, I thought the angels wanted to build a stadium in downtown LA?
    yeah they are supposed to get a football stadium, but look at how well that's going, not even god could get the real estate to build a church in LA.
    Quote Originally Posted by DLCK View Post
    I can't remember who but a mod here said we wouldn't get more then 5 or 6 billion. That we weren't bigger then the Yankees and we couldn't make more then the Yankees hmmm.
    lol i remember that.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    North Orange County
    Posts
    9,431
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Greedy22 View Post
    Because $100 million to you guys is chump change

    In all seriousness, I thought the angels wanted to build a stadium in downtown LA?
    Agreed about the 100M being nothing. There is a great article on LA Times about how the Dodger owners are committed to making Dodger Stadium a first class facility, but will not commit to a long term future at dodger stadium.

    The Angels are an Orange County brand. Moving to LA would be a disaster for them. Also, no teams are allowed to play within 5 miles of eachother under the MLB constitution. Dodger Stadium is adjacent to Downtown and the Angels can't move there.

    To the poster talking down on the NFL stadium, it is shovel ready and once a team commits to moving it will be built.
    Lakers, Dodgers, Kings
    Bring Back the Los Angeles Rams

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,184
    vCash
    1500
    Apparently, someone didn't understand the concept of "if you build it, he will come." Lol. Anyway, I really think it would be a bad idea to move away from the Ravine. Then again, it is a business. I doubt that they can build an NFL stadium at the ravine, you know the committee and all. I just hope they don't.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    North Orange County
    Posts
    9,431
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DLCK View Post
    I can't remember who but a mod here said we wouldn't get more then 5 or 6 billion. That we weren't bigger then the Yankees and we couldn't make more then the Yankees hmmm.
    Hold on there Tiger. Just cuz the mula is flowing doesn't make us the Yankees. The Dodgers have a great imprint and reputation in baseball and are one of MLB's greatest franchises but the Yankees are in a class of their own. They have won more titles than anyone can dream of.

    We aren't the Yankees. We are the Dodgers. Glad we are getting our pride back. But this Yankee comparison is tired. Lets focus on us.
    Lakers, Dodgers, Kings
    Bring Back the Los Angeles Rams

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    21,305
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    So the whole point was to create a disadvantage for like 3 teams? No it was for the bottom dwellers like the Marlins and Pirates to be able to keep their players, instead it went into their pockets and towards new stadiums, if it's not going to do it's intended purpose why keep it around?
    It's there in order to keep some competitive balance to some degree.

    Teams like the Yankees, Boston, possibly Chicago, and certain other markets (now LA), can't spend in excess of 189+ million dollars without their being a certain penalty and an increasing one for every year consecutively they are over it.

    With that there are more chances for other teams to acquire quality FA. It's there for some of the same reason why the 2nd WC is there, to promote a more equal playing field.

    Baseball knows that with these large regional tv contracts, more money will be a lot of certain teams disposal and not others. This is a way to keep spending in check to some degree.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    9,960
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    It's there in order to keep some competitive balance to some degree.

    Teams like the Yankees, Boston, possibly Chicago, and certain other markets (now LA), can't spend in excess of 189+ million dollars without their being a certain penalty and an increasing one for every year consecutively they are over it.

    With that there are more chances for other teams to acquire quality FA. It's there for some of the same reason why the 2nd WC is there, to promote a more equal playing field.

    Baseball knows that with these large regional tv contracts, more money will be a lot of certain teams disposal and not others. This is a way to keep spending in check to some degree.
    But that's not why the owners and union agreed to it, they agreed to it under the impression that teams like the marlins would be able to keep their best players, which they never used the funds to do.

    But if you want to keep spending in check create a hard cap. And before you say that the union would never allow this, then why would they allow the curbing of spending at all. The union agreed to this because they though that these smaller teams would be spending too. As it turns out we see Miguel Cabrera traded to the Tigers, Lee & CC traded in back to back years, not to mention V-Mart etc etc etc it's the exact same pattern as we have seen before, and since it's not doing its intended purpose then get rid of it.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    21,305
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    But that's not why the owners and union agreed to it, they agreed to it under the impression that teams like the marlins would be able to keep their best players, which they never used the funds to do.

    But if you want to keep spending in check create a hard cap. And before you say that the union would never allow this, then why would they allow the curbing of spending at all. The union agreed to this because they though that these smaller teams would be spending too. As it turns out we see Miguel Cabrera traded to the Tigers, Lee & CC traded in back to back years, not to mention V-Mart etc etc etc it's the exact same pattern as we have seen before, and since it's not doing its intended purpose then get rid of it.
    The players would still never allow it.

    Smaller market teams are not going to get a host of their revenue from luxury tax endowments but i am sure it does help teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates, KC Royals, etc etc who have been spending more in more recent seasons.

    Big market teams are still obviously going to be the frontrunners for the guys you mentioned but at least they won't be the sole teams in the race. But it does help teams like Cleveland sign a guy like Nick Swisher who the Yankees would have most likely re-signed if they didn't have that luxury tax number to uphold to.

    It does create some financial parity.

    As for your Marlins point, that has more to do with Jeffrey Loria then it does what the luxury tax was intended for.

    They made a mistake anyway assuming that ballpark would acquire them the revenue to sustain that payroll.

    Even in a new ballpark with an entirely new what was supposed to be exciting team they still couldn't draw.
    Last edited by metswon69; 01-23-2013 at 11:09 AM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52,937
    vCash
    1500
    mother of god
    30 Team Stadium Checklist: 10 to go

    1) Yankees 2) Orioles 3) Rays 4) Red Sox 5) Mets 6) Braves 7) Phillies 8) Nationals 9) Marlins 10) Pirates 11) Padres 12) Astros 13) Mariners 14) Twins 15) Cubs 16) White Sox 17) Cardinals 18) Indians 19) Tigers 20) Royals


  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    9,960
    vCash
    1500
    Out of curiosity are there any mets, yankee, redsox fans that are subscribed to their teams tv network? and how much does it cost?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    21,305
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    Out of curiosity are there any mets, yankee, redsox fans that are subscribed to their teams tv network? and how much does it cost?
    Its part of a sports package usually..

    I have it on my Direct Tv Choice plan (which is a set price) and when i had cable it was on Optimum but you had to order separately from basic cable.
    Last edited by metswon69; 01-23-2013 at 10:24 AM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    9,960
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Its part of a sports package usually..

    I have it on my Direct Tv Choice plan (which is a set price) and when i had cable it was on Optimum but you had to order separately from basic cable.
    hmmmm my family has direct tv, and we don't watch most of the 1k+ channels we get, maybe we could drop some channels to get the dodgers network.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,461
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinstripe power View Post
    mother of god
    Is that the Ancient Aliens guy lol?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,202
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    hmmmm my family has direct tv, and we don't watch most of the 1k+ channels we get, maybe we could drop some channels to get the dodgers network.
    It is going to be around 4 or 5 bucks a month like the Lakers channel is.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    9,960
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Gibby23 View Post
    It is going to be around 4 or 5 bucks a month like the Lakers channel is.
    Damn it, i mean it is probably worth shelling out the money for that but still.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •