Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 238
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    2,301
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    This made me very literally laugh out loud

    The Astros were 7th in payroll just 3 years ago.

    Their payroll is rock bottom because they are rebuilding. Not because they can't carry a payroll.


    It's ridiculous how little attention people pay and make blanket arguments like this out of absolutely no where that is rooted in ignorance.

    Doesn't even begin to approach how unnecessary a salary cap is, how great the parity is in the MLB, and how a horrible example the Astros are to use.
    Cool guy.
    ]I may be acting like a Kidd, switch from team to team, now I'm getting Bucks and all I see is green. Call me what you want, image don't mean a thing to me, sign me for 5 or 6 mill and worry about my legacy. - Me

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    10,347
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    We have discussed this before. I have still yet to see any evidence. I would agree with your examples that for a few players like Bryce Harper that they would get less money if there was a cap. But I'm looking at the whole picture. The entire P.A. as a whole would not make less.
    When we look at the big 4 sports we can see that the players get about 50 percent of the pie. I don't see any evidence of baseball players getting a higher revenue split in the last decade.

    This kind of reminds me of the lineup protection myth. On the surface it seems logical. A good hitter behind a good hitter provides protection. It is understandable why someone would believe in it. But as you already know ( and have explained very well to others) there is no evidence to support that assumption.

    Same goes for the cap takes money away from the players and gives to the owners myth. On the surface it sounds logical.
    Cap = restriction Restriction is bad for the players
    No cap = unlimited Unlimited is good for the players

    But if you dig a little deeper you can see that it isn't so simple.

    Posters give big long stories and wonderful ideas of how lineup protection exists but never really give any evidence to support their claim. The same goes here. No evidence.

    Jeffy I was skeptical about how bad it was to bunt but you and some other posters showed me some bunting charts and now I have revised my views on the matter. My mind can be changed if proof is provided.

    In my opinion, in order to say that a cap takes money away from the players and gives to the owners you must show the numbers of revenue splitting from the big 4 sports in the last 10 years or so.

    If you can show that baseball players consistently get a higher percentage of revenues then the players of the other big 3 sports then that is something I would be interested in.
    The NFL, NBA, and NHL have all been in the 50s percent range in the last decade. It is written in their CBAs.
    this was very well written, the thing i would like to add is that a cap isn't really detrimental to the sport, depending on where it is set, lets say they install a hard cap of 200 mill, how many teams is that really going to affect? maybe 2 lets say that it's at 180 million, that will maybe affect 5 teams, but even the teams affected wont be at a competitive disadvantage. The only way it would become a problem is if they lowered it to something like 100 mill that would drastically impact a lot of teams who are either over it or close to it. A high hard cap would just require teams to spend more wisely, not really spend less. There wouldn't need to be a floor either, because why bother. Just get rid of the luxury tax, if teams want to spend they can but they don't have too.

    none of these things will be a detriment to the sport, not as much as pooling all the revenue and distributing it would.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    37,067
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    We have discussed this before. I have still yet to see any evidence. I would agree with your examples that for a few players like Bryce Harper that they would get less money if there was a cap. But I'm looking at the whole picture. The entire P.A. as a whole would not make less.
    When we look at the big 4 sports we can see that the players get about 50 percent of the pie. I don't see any evidence of baseball players getting a higher revenue split in the last decade.

    This kind of reminds me of the lineup protection myth. On the surface it seems logical. A good hitter behind a good hitter provides protection. It is understandable why someone would believe in it. But as you already know ( and have explained very well to others) there is no evidence to support that assumption.

    Same goes for the cap takes money away from the players and gives to the owners myth. On the surface it sounds logical.
    Cap = restriction Restriction is bad for the players
    No cap = unlimited Unlimited is good for the players

    But if you dig a little deeper you can see that it isn't so simple.

    Posters give big long stories and wonderful ideas of how lineup protection exists but never really give any evidence to support their claim. The same goes here. No evidence.

    Jeffy I was skeptical about how bad it was to bunt but you and some other posters showed me some bunting charts and now I have revised my views on the matter. My mind can be changed if proof is provided.

    In my opinion, in order to say that a cap takes money away from the players and gives to the owners you must show the numbers of revenue splitting from the big 4 sports in the last 10 years or so.

    If you can show that baseball players consistently get a higher percentage of revenues then the players of the other big 3 sports then that is something I would be interested in.
    The NFL, NBA, and NHL have all been in the 50s percent range in the last decade. It is written in their CBAs.
    Not avoiding a response, but I have been busy since I was last on, and am about to go out of town for the weekend and have not taken the time to read this yet. But I want to show you the respect you have earned and deserve and commit to reading this when I get on again, which will likely be Sunday evening. I apologize for the delayed response, life happens!

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,064
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    I totally agree, it's not about how much you spend but how you spend the much. Though anyone who says having that having drasticly more money to spend isn't an advantage is being asinine.
    I normally disagree with almost everything you say here, but this is completely true.

    People can argue the merits of parity in baseball; how to define it, whether it actually exists, is it good for the game, etc. It's irrelevant to a salary cap discussion. The point isn't to make the playoffs a revolving door system where everyone gets a turn, it's to make it so some teams can't exploit a competitive advantage in building an organization to such an extreme that it becomes ridiculous.

    Without a salary cap, it allows big market teams (who would still have a huge spending advantage with a cap) to just exploit that advantage endlessly as the Dodgers are now trying to do, as the Yankees have done in the past decade, as the Red Sox did for a couple of years and the Phillies as well. The Angels and the Tigers may also be going in that direction too.

    A salary cap would force these super intelligent teams to use their advantage more wisely, instead of more loosely.

    I don't understand why people in favor of unlimited spending say "Well, teams like Tampa or Oakland have proven that you can occasionally win if you're run by a genius" but then say it'd be horrible for baseball if the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Phillies and Dodgers would have to be only slightly smarter than they currently are.

    What if there was a salary cap ceiling of $150,000,000 annually and a floor of $50,000,000. Would that really be a bad thing for the sport? Other than the Yankees and Dodgers, no team in baseball would be struggling to get under that cap. According to FOXSports, the third highest expected 2013 payroll is the Phillies who are down to $158M.

    Personally, I'm not convinced that parity is a good thing in sports. I like that the Detroit Red Wings and New England Patriots have been great teams in their respective sports for a long period of time. However, they don't quite do it the way the Yankees did and like the Dodgers are trying to do.
    Last edited by mtf; 02-08-2013 at 07:43 PM.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    10,347
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mtf View Post
    I normally disagree with almost everything you say here, but this is completely true.

    People can argue the merits of parity in baseball; how to define it, whether it actually exists, is it good for the game, etc. It's irrelevant to a salary cap discussion. The point isn't to make the playoffs a revolving door system where everyone gets a turn, it's to make it so some teams can't exploit a competitive advantage in building an organization to such an extreme that it becomes ridiculous.

    Without a salary cap, it allows big market teams (who would still have a huge spending advantage with a cap) to just exploit that advantage endlessly as the Dodgers are now trying to do, as the Yankees have done in the past decade, as the Red Sox did for a couple of years and the Phillies as well. The Angels and the Tigers may also be going in that direction too.

    A salary cap would force these super intelligent teams to use their advantage more wisely, instead of more loosely.

    I don't understand why people in favor of unlimited spending say "Well, teams like Tampa or Oakland have proven that you can occasionally win if you're run by a genius" but then say it'd be horrible for baseball if the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Phillies and Dodgers would have to be only slightly smarter than they currently are.

    What if there was a salary cap ceiling of $150,000,000 annually and a floor of $50,000,000. Would that really be a bad thing for the sport? Other than the Yankees and Dodgers, no team in baseball would be struggling to get under that cap. According to FOXSports, the third highest expected 2013 payroll is the Phillies who are down to $158M.

    Personally, I'm not convinced that parity is a good thing in sports. I like that the Detroit Red Wings and New England Patriots have been great teams in their respective sports for a long period of time. However, they don't quite do it the way the Yankees did and like the Dodgers are trying to do.
    First of all, Who are you again?

    And Secondly this is the most acute thing you said, teams with these big monetary advantages don't loose them, they just need to be smarter, and not rely on money to make up for mistakes that they made. I knew ahead of time that the Ubaldo to Cleveland trade was going to work out poorly for Cleveland. I feel bad, and at the time I was hoping it worked out because the Indians can't afford to make big trade mistakes like that. The Angels can though.

    Thirdly, i agree if you set the cap high enough it wont make an impact on player overall salary, very few teams will be affected by it at all. Hell lets say they instituted a cap of 180 mill, but told everyone that it wont come into effect for another 5 years. That's long enough that most bad contracts will be off the books for any team. Also, i don't see a floor as necessary because it just makes teams spend on bad players. And their aren't many teams that sit bellow 40-50 mill. Just get rid of the luxary tax so they can't continue to make free money that they have no intention of using.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,064
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    First of all, Who are you again?
    A regular reader and poster on this forum. Any personal information beyond that isn't pertinent to this discussion which is why I'm not asking you for any.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    And Secondly this is the most acute thing you said, teams with these big monetary advantages don't loose them, they just need to be smarter, and not rely on money to make up for mistakes that they made. I knew ahead of time that the Ubaldo to Cleveland trade was going to work out poorly for Cleveland. I feel bad, and at the time I was hoping it worked out because the Indians can't afford to make big trade mistakes like that. The Angels can though.
    I think you might have had a different response if you knew the difference between loose and lose.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    Thirdly, i agree if you set the cap high enough it wont make an impact on player overall salary, very few teams will be affected by it at all. Hell lets say they instituted a cap of 180 mill, but told everyone that it wont come into effect for another 5 years. That's long enough that most bad contracts will be off the books for any team. Also, i don't see a floor as necessary because it just makes teams spend on bad players. And their aren't many teams that sit bellow 40-50 mill. Just get rid of the luxary tax so they can't continue to make free money that they have no intention of using.
    Yes, it won't make an effect on individual player salaries for the biggest stars. Players like Felix Hernandez and Joey Votto are signing huge deals with otherwise frugal teams. If a team like the Yankees or Dodgers were at a hypothetical cap, and a player like Mike Trout became a free agent at some point in the future, it doesn't mean he isn't going to get a $250+/10yr contract from someone, there'll still be many teams vying for his services and willing to pay the price. It only takes 1 owner anyway. The Texas Rangers were bidding against themselves for Alex Rodriguez when they gave him that ridiculous contract back in 2000.

    I suggested the floor simply because many of the anti-cap zealots will cry fowl if there isn't some sort of discomfort imposed on small market teams like the ceiling would do to the big market teams. They want to make sure the revenue sharing money is not pocketed by ownership while their organization is rebuilding, like Houston, Pittsburg or Oakland. Right now, the big spenders outspend the poorer teams by about 4:1 or maybe even as high as 5:1 by the time the Dodgers roster is set.

    A salary cap ceiling/floor of $150m/$50m respectively still gives them a sizable advantage, it just brings it down and forces certain teams to use their massive advantage a little wiser, and brings them more in line with some of the mid-market teams.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,842
    vCash
    1500
    Do I have to get the statistics out again?

    Not only does Baseball have a General Distribution of Payroll indicative of parity, a payroll floor and or ceiling literally has no effect on said distribution.

    It simply decreases the nominal differentiation.

    Seriously, do you people really want another lecture on Mean, Medians, and Standard Deviation?

    Owners who refuse to invest in their team should in no way handicap owners who invest heavily in their teams.

    I feel sorry for fans of franchises whom have owners who are clearly more interested in maximizing profits at a minimal payroll as opposed to owners who are interested in profit and wins, independent of overall nominal payroll numbers.

    People who favor a salary cap or ceiling do so out of political predilections against moneyed interests and a desire to forcibly take money away from successful and profitable franchises. It has nothing to do with parity.

    Just look at the friggin Yankees...how many Championships have $200 Million payrolls actually produced?

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,064
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    Do I have to get the statistics out again?

    Not only does Baseball have a General Distribution of Payroll indicative of parity, a payroll floor and or ceiling literally has no effect on said distribution.

    It simply decreases the nominal differentiation.

    Seriously, do you people really want another lecture on Mean, Medians, and Standard Deviation?

    Owners who refuse to invest in their team should in no way handicap owners who invest heavily in their teams.

    I feel sorry for fans of franchises whom have owners who are clearly more interested in maximizing profits at a minimal payroll as opposed to owners who are interested in profit and wins, independent of overall nominal payroll numbers.

    People who favor a salary cap or ceiling do so out of political predilections against moneyed interests and a desire to forcibly take money away from successful and profitable franchises. It has nothing to do with parity.

    Just look at the friggin Yankees...how many Championships have $200 Million payrolls actually produced?
    You can lecture about parity at your leisure, it's not particularly relevant to what I was saying and I thought I made it clear the issue is an unfair advantage being exploited to an extreme. The success or failure to implement that advantage isn't the issue. In a general sense, I think parity may even be harmful. It's good for a sport to have a dynasty to a certain degree (ie. Detroit Red Wings, New England Patriots). At the same time I think it's important that it's done in a reasonably fair and competitive way otherwise it's cheapened and less interesting.

    And in response to your question about the Yankees championships, I believe they've won 5 in the last 16 years since becoming the highest spending team in baseball. I would say that's irrelevant though, since it's a straw man argument since championships in baseball are not awarded to the best team, they're awarded to the luckiest good team. The Yankees ridiculous spending has helped them to win the division and get a place in the playoff lottery in 13 of the last 18 years, and a wild card spot in 4 of those other 5 years. I'd say that the spending has served them quite well.

    I'm only bringing referencing the Yankees history because you asked the question. I think they've done some other things very well to contribute to long-term success, but the ability and willingness to add payroll to such an extreme has definitely been a very important asset in their history over the past 2 decades.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,842
    vCash
    1500
    An interesting aside: The Yankees have won exactly one World Series with a payroll over $100 Million dollars.

    The current size of the New York payroll is a function of over-payment to formerly elite players and one or two major spending binges (Alex, 2009).

    Their wins are not a function of their payroll; their payroll is a function of their wins.

    Payroll caps mean salary caps...which means more of the profits of baseball go into the pockets of the owners and less goes to the actual people playing the game and entertaining us.

    I would rather Alex or Pujols or Felix have an appropriate share for the value they bring to the owners.

    The Yankees make the playoffs consistently because they are benefitting from a "stars aligned" coming of age of generational talent centered on players like Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera, an age that is quite notably coming to an end.

    The franchise is currently forced to pay exorbitant amount of money out of its necessity to pay homage to this generation of players and attempt to reproduce via Free Agency the confluence of talent that created a dynasty.

    If no one is noticing, even the Yankees are finding this financial situation a major stress and albatross contracts including AJ Burnett, Alex Rodriquez, CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeria, et al have brought them to the lovely position they are in today.

    High payrolls are not a problem...idiot ownership is.

    Payroll floors do nothing to address the supposed issue of fairness in baseball and payroll caps only benefit owner profit margins.

    So what is the point to them?

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,064
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    An interesting aside: The Yankees have won exactly one World Series with a payroll over $100 Million dollars.
    Interesting aside: The Yankees have been in the playoffs 17 of 18 years since becoming the highest payroll in baseball.

    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    The current size of the New York payroll is a function of over-payment to formerly elite players and one or two major spending binges (Alex, 2009).

    Their wins are not a function of their payroll; their payroll is a function of their wins.
    No, it's neither. Their payroll is not the entire reason they're successful, but it is an important factor in sustaining their success. Alex Rodriguez was still being paid $25M AAV for the entire decade preceding the new contract the Yankees decided to give him. He isn't their only $20M+ player either.

    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    Payroll caps mean salary caps...which means more of the profits of baseball go into the pockets of the owners and less goes to the actual people playing the game and entertaining us.

    I would rather Alex or Pujols or Felix have an appropriate share for the value they bring to the owners.
    Interesting that you say that since baseball revenues are soaring far quicker than player salaries. The super rich (owners) in baseball are getting more rich faster than the rich (the players). It's irrelevant though since this debate is about some teams having an unfair advantage and not who gets what money.

    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    The Yankees make the playoffs consistently because they are benefitting from a "stars aligned" coming of age of generational talent centered on players like Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera, an age that is quite notably coming to an end.
    Yeah sure, and for every Derek Jeter or Robinson Cano on the roster there's an all-star at another position that isn't the homegrown talent. There's no problem with that necessarily, if that route to team building wasn't feasible for the vast majority of their competitors.

    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    The franchise is currently forced to pay exorbitant amount of money out of its necessity to pay homage to this generation of players and attempt to reproduce via Free Agency the confluence of talent that created a dynasty.
    They aren't forced to give out the Jeter, Rodriguez, Sabathia or Texiera contract, they chose them all and it's served them very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    If no one is noticing, even the Yankees are finding this financial situation a major stress and albatross contracts including AJ Burnett, Alex Rodriquez, CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeria, et al have brought them to the lovely position they are in today.
    Don't worry, everyone is noticing that the current Yankees are victim of the past Yankees. We get it. For almost 2 decades of dominance they'll maybe suffer for a season to reset the joke tax system before reloading. It's tragic.

    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    High payrolls are not a problem...idiot ownership is.
    Half correct. The ability to have a high payroll is a problem. So is bad ownership, but that's another topic. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    Payroll floors do nothing to address the supposed issue of fairness in baseball and payroll caps only benefit owner profit margins.

    So what is the point to them?
    I don't care about a payroll floor, so I'm not going to defend the legitimacy of implementing one. People who argue against a cap are usually saying a floor would have to follow (as if it's some sort of compromise).

    As for the cap only benefiting owners profit margins, that's false. I'm not saying it couldn't or wouldn't happen, but it's not the only effect. The primary effect would be limiting a huge advantage available only to a select few lucky organizations.

    I'm not sure why you took us down Yankee history. They are not the only team to utilize this advantage, although they are definitely the main perpetrator. The Phillies, Red Sox, and now the Dodgers have also taken advantage.
    Last edited by mtf; 02-10-2013 at 06:52 PM.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,300
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Not avoiding a response, but I have been busy since I was last on, and am about to go out of town for the weekend and have not taken the time to read this yet. But I want to show you the respect you have earned and deserve and commit to reading this when I get on again, which will likely be Sunday evening. I apologize for the delayed response, life happens!
    No opologies are necessary. You are an excellent poster and I look forward to discussing when its convenient. Have a good weekend!

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    942
    vCash
    1500
    Astros will rise again.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    37,067
    vCash
    1000
    As promised, my delayed response.

    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    We have discussed this before. I have still yet to see any evidence. I would agree with your examples that for a few players like Bryce Harper that they would get less money if there was a cap. But I'm looking at the whole picture. The entire P.A. as a whole would not make less.
    When we look at the big 4 sports we can see that the players get about 50 percent of the pie. I don't see any evidence of baseball players getting a higher revenue split in the last decade.
    Well they make a higher percentage of the overall revenue in salaries, more than any other sport. I'd say that's fairly strong evidence.


    This kind of reminds me of the lineup protection myth. On the surface it seems logical. A good hitter behind a good hitter provides protection. It is understandable why someone would believe in it. But as you already know ( and have explained very well to others) there is no evidence to support that assumption.
    Curious. Do you feel there is a sufficient lack of evidence? Or do you believe it's 100% false that a salary cap would control players salaries as a whole?

    I.e. Are you just not convinced one way or the other because of a lack of evidence either direction? Or do you feel that it's a myth?


    Same goes for the cap takes money away from the players and gives to the owners myth. On the surface it sounds logical.
    Cap = restriction Restriction is bad for the players
    No cap = unlimited Unlimited is good for the players
    Might I respond with a question.

    If a cap didn't limit the players salaries, then why did we have the 94 strike? Why did the owners almost unanimously vote for one and why were the players willing to give up on their incomes entirely to strike? If it didn't do exactly this, why did we have the strike?

    Posters give big long stories and wonderful ideas of how lineup protection exists but never really give any evidence to support their claim. The same goes here. No evidence.
    I feel that the percentage of revenue in the MLB going toward MLB salaries being the highest of any other sport, and this being the only one of the big four without a cap is plenty of evidence.

    One could say each of the four sports are universally different, and they are all different, even the number of teams in each sport. But the evidence to me seems to support the theory.

    In my opinion, in order to say that a cap takes money away from the players and gives to the owners you must show the numbers of revenue splitting from the big 4 sports in the last 10 years or so.
    I'm fairly certain this was done the last time we discussed this.

    Just giving you rough numbers

    MLB player salaries are about 3.5 billion, and the league makes about 7.5 billion (47%)
    In the NFL, player salaries are about 4 billion, and the league makes about 12 billion (33%)
    In the NBA, player salaries are right about 2 billion (little less), and the league makes 5 billion (-40%)
    In the NHL, player salaries are about 1.4 billion, and the league makes about 3.5 billion (40%)

    Obviously these numbers are a little rough, but it gives you a general idea.

    I don't see them approaching 50%, even if you are generous with the numbers.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    37,067
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    Their wins are not a function of their payroll; their payroll is a function of their wins.
    Exactly, 100% correct.


    Payroll is reflective after a team does well/doesn't do well.

    Every team does this.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    10,347
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Not avoiding a response, but I have been busy since I was last on, and am about to go out of town for the weekend and have not taken the time to read this yet. But I want to show you the respect you have earned and deserve and commit to reading this when I get on again, which will likely be Sunday evening. I apologize for the delayed response, life happens!
    Does this mean I'm not getting a response or respect bawmp bwaaaaaaaamp

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •