PDA

View Full Version : Salary Cap Version 2



Mike Oxlong
07-20-2010, 04:44 PM
This is a poll to see who is favor of the salary cap for the MLB, when you post just state your team and that's it. Discussion of the topic can be done in the other salary cap thread. I just would like to see how the small to mid market teams fans think about the topic compared to the larger ones.

Mods please do not merge this with the other thread it is totally different.

Mike Oxlong
07-20-2010, 04:46 PM
Twins.

SouthSideRookie
07-20-2010, 04:48 PM
Astros

Montrealer
07-20-2010, 04:50 PM
Orioles

Nymfan87
07-20-2010, 04:52 PM
Mets

p.s.-I lol'd at the tag for this thread

hoggin88
07-20-2010, 04:56 PM
Isn't it kind of useless for people to post their team but not what they chose in the poll?

Cubs - Yes

Ian.
07-20-2010, 04:58 PM
Mariners-No.

WSU Tony
07-20-2010, 04:59 PM
Twins - Yes. Hard cap with max and minimum values.

bosox3431
07-20-2010, 05:01 PM
Red sox No

Twins Fan 7
07-20-2010, 05:03 PM
Twins-Yes

Jetsguy
07-20-2010, 05:05 PM
Yankees - No

Cowboys123456
07-20-2010, 05:22 PM
Toronto-YES

Mike Oxlong
07-20-2010, 05:31 PM
Isn't it kind of useless for people to post their team but not what they chose in the poll?

Cubs - Yes

That's what the other thread is for. This is just simple and to the point. You can say a little something just not a damn paragraph.

hoggin88
07-20-2010, 05:42 PM
That's what the other thread is for. This is just simple and to the point. You can say a little something just not a damn paragraph.

I was just saying I think it is weird if people just list their favorite team in their post and that's it. Why would you just list the team you follow and not say yes or no in your post? Then you don't know which way the big or small market teams are voting.

But now people seem to be saying yes or no.

That is all.

Mike Oxlong
07-20-2010, 05:44 PM
I was just saying I think it is weird if people just list their favorite team in their post and that's it. Why would you just list the team you follow and not say yes or no in your post? Then you don't know which way the big or small market teams are voting.

But now people seem to be saying yes or no.

That is all.

That's why I put the voting public.

hoggin88
07-20-2010, 05:48 PM
That's why I put the voting public.

Oh, my bad. It's not showing up as public at least for me, that's why I asked. I'm done now though, it's no big deal.

TheRuckus
07-20-2010, 05:52 PM
Phillies; **** no.

And it's not because I'm a fan of a big-market team. I'd feel the same way if I cheered for a small-market club (and I do, actually, since my secondary allegiance is to Tampa, which competes with the two biggest payrolls in the league).

A salary cap isn't going to have the effect most people believe it will. Besides, if one's going to be instituted, the entire financial structure of baseball would need to be revamped - and if you think that's getting done without a long labor dispute and stoppage, you're a fool.

Bronzbomba
07-20-2010, 05:56 PM
Yankees...No.

Looks like it is tied 8-8 right now. Pretty much down the line between small and big market teams. Salary Cap will never happen, so don't worry about it. The players union would throw a fit like never before, and probably threaten to strike over it.

Mike Oxlong
07-20-2010, 06:03 PM
Yankees...No.

Looks like it is tied 8-8 right now. Pretty much down the line between small and big market teams. Salary Cap will never happen, so don't worry about it. The players union would throw a fit like never before, and probably threaten to strike over it.

No one is saying what will or won't happen and the reprecussions, this is just solely your opinion on one simple question. If you vote no you don't need to defend your post.

TheRuckus
07-20-2010, 06:19 PM
Yankees...No.

Looks like it is tied 8-8 right now. Pretty much down the line between small and big market teams. Salary Cap will never happen, so don't worry about it. The players union would throw a fit like never before, and probably threaten to strike over it.

I don't think anyone expected anything different.

But as I mentioned in my post, I didn't vote no just because I'm a Phillies fan. I voted no because I'm philosophically opposed to a cap, and I think most of the small-market fans clamoring for one are doing so out of frustration and self-interest. Understandable, but not productive.

DodgerBlue8188
07-20-2010, 06:50 PM
Dodgers-yes

whitesoxfan83
07-20-2010, 07:01 PM
Absolutely not.

It isnt even worth discussing anymore because people refuse to listen to the facts on the situation.

They would rather believe their greedy owners, who are the ones peddling this nonsense as an excuse, for their team's lack of success.

The simple fact is this: Money doesn't always buy championships. The Phillies in 08, White Sox in 05, Marlins in 03, Angels in 02- All had payroll ranks in the teens (The 2001 Dbacks were just inside the top 10)

The other thing to consider is that even leagues with salary caps are not necessarily balanced...

The NBA instituted a Salary Cap in the 1984-85 season, yet if you look back at the 27 NBA championships since the salary cap was created there has been...

7 DIFFERENT NBA CHAMPIONS

Again... 27 years, only 7 different champions... (Lakers 8, Bulls 6, Spurs 4, Pistons 3, Celtics 3, Rockets 2, Heat 1)

The salary cap has done absolutely nothing for the competitive balance of basketball (AS recently as 7-8-10 see LeBron-Wade-Bosh).

The simple fact is that owners not only have the money to spend more on their teams, they have extra revenue to spend on their teams they choose not to.

They choose not to because people actually believe them when they say they can't...

Still don't believe me?

Take these figures from Forbes in 2005 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=33&passYear=2005&passListType=Misc&searchParameter1=unset&searchParameter2=unset&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=30&resultsSortProperties=-numberfield2%2C%2Bnumberfield1&resultsSortCategoryName=Current+Value&category1=category&category2=category&passKeyword=)

Now consider the revenue for each team in 2005:

MLB Revenues (MILL):

264 New York
201 Boston Red
180 New York
173 Seattle
170 Chicago Cubs
167 Philadelphia
166 Los Angeles
162 Atlanta
159 San Francisco
155 Houston
151 St Louis
150 San Diego
148 Baltimore
147 Anaheim
142 Texas
139 Cleveland
136 Arizona
132 Colorado
131 Chicago White Sox
127 Cincinnati Reds
126 Detroit
116 Oakland
112 Milwaukee
110 Tampa Bay
109 Pittsburgh
107 Toronto
104 Kansas City
103 Florida
102 Minnesota
80 Washington

Now consider those teams 2006 Payrolls (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2006):

New York Yankees $ 194,663,079
Boston Red Sox $ 120,099,824
Los Angeles Angels $ 103,472,000
Chicago White Sox $ 102,750,667
New York Mets $ 101,084,963
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 98,447,187
Chicago Cubs $ 94,424,499
Houston Astros $ 92,551,503
Atlanta Braves $ 90,156,876
San Francisco Giants $ 90,056,419
St. Louis Cardinals $ 88,891,371
Philadelphia Phillies $ 88,273,333
Seattle Mariners $ 87,959,833
Detroit Tigers $ 82,612,866
Baltimore Orioles $ 72,585,582
Toronto Blue Jays $ 71,915,000
San Diego Padres $ 69,896,141
Texas Rangers $ 68,228,662
Minnesota Twins $ 63,396,006
Washington Nationals $ 63,143,000
Oakland Athletics $ 62,243,079
Cincinnati Reds $ 60,909,519
Arizona Diamondbacks $ 59,684,226
Milwaukee Brewers $ 57,568,333
Cleveland Indians $ 56,031,500
Kansas City Royals $ 47,294,000
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 46,717,750
Colorado Rockies $ 41,233,000
Tampa Bay Rays $ 35,417,967
Florida Marlins $ 14,998,500

% of 2005 Revenue spent on 2006 Payroll:

79% Washington Nationals
79% Chicago White Sox
74% New York Yankees
70% Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
67% Toronto Blue Jays
66% Detroit Tigers
62% Minnesota Twins
60% Houston Astros
60% Boston Red Sox
59% Los Angeles Dodgers
59% St Louis Cardinals
57% San Francisco Giants
56% New York Mets
56% Atlanta Braves
55% Chicago Cubs
53% Oakland Athletics
53% Philadelphia Phillies
52% Milwaukee Brewers
51% Seattle Mariners
49% Baltimore Orioles
48% Cincinnati Reds
48% Texas Rangers
47% San Diego Padres
45% Kansas City Royals
44% Arizona Diamondbacks
43% Pittsburgh Pirates
40% Cleveland Indians
32% Tampa Bay Devil Rays
31% Colorado Rockies
15% Florida Marlins

Naturally no one spends all their revenue, but when you see 11 teams under the 50% mark, and all but 4 teams below the 70% mark you have to ask yourself what the truth really is:

Is it more likely that my owner is a greedy scumbag trying to perpetuate the idea He cant spend anymore money so you wont blame him for not doing so...

or

Is it more likely that the numbers and figures in regards to all of this are completely false.

People arguing for a salary cap are just ignorant of the facts.

Mike Oxlong
07-20-2010, 07:25 PM
No one can follow directions...I knew this wasn't going to work what was I thinking.

Jeffy25
07-20-2010, 07:50 PM
Cardinals - no

commonsense12
07-20-2010, 07:53 PM
Absolutely not.

It isnt even worth discussing anymore because people refuse to listen to the facts on the situation.

They would rather believe their greedy owners, who are the ones peddling this nonsense as an excuse, for their team's lack of success.

The simple fact is this: Money doesn't always buy championships. The Phillies in 08, White Sox in 05, Marlins in 03, Angels in 02- All had payroll ranks in the teens (The 2001 Dbacks were just inside the top 10)

The other thing to consider is that even leagues with salary caps are not necessarily balanced...

The NBA instituted a Salary Cap in the 1984-85 season, yet if you look back at the 27 NBA championships since the salary cap was created there has been...

7 DIFFERENT NBA CHAMPIONS

Again... 27 years, only 7 different champions... (Lakers 8, Bulls 6, Spurs 4, Pistons 3, Celtics 3, Rockets 2, Heat 1)

The salary cap has done absolutely nothing for the competitive balance of basketball (AS recently as 7-8-10 see LeBron-Wade-Bosh).

The simple fact is that owners not only have the money to spend more on their teams, they have extra revenue to spend on their teams they choose not to.

They choose not to because people actually believe them when they say they can't...

Still don't believe me?

Take these figures from Forbes in 2005 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=33&passYear=2005&passListType=Misc&searchParameter1=unset&searchParameter2=unset&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=30&resultsSortProperties=-numberfield2%2C%2Bnumberfield1&resultsSortCategoryName=Current+Value&category1=category&category2=category&passKeyword=)

Now consider the revenue for each team in 2005:

MLB Revenues (MILL):

264 New York
201 Boston Red
180 New York
173 Seattle
170 Chicago Cubs
167 Philadelphia
166 Los Angeles
162 Atlanta
159 San Francisco
155 Houston
151 St Louis
150 San Diego
148 Baltimore
147 Anaheim
142 Texas
139 Cleveland
136 Arizona
132 Colorado
131 Chicago White Sox
127 Cincinnati Reds
126 Detroit
116 Oakland
112 Milwaukee
110 Tampa Bay
109 Pittsburgh
107 Toronto
104 Kansas City
103 Florida
102 Minnesota
80 Washington

Now consider those teams 2006 Payrolls (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2006):

New York Yankees $ 194,663,079
Boston Red Sox $ 120,099,824
Los Angeles Angels $ 103,472,000
Chicago White Sox $ 102,750,667
New York Mets $ 101,084,963
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 98,447,187
Chicago Cubs $ 94,424,499
Houston Astros $ 92,551,503
Atlanta Braves $ 90,156,876
San Francisco Giants $ 90,056,419
St. Louis Cardinals $ 88,891,371
Philadelphia Phillies $ 88,273,333
Seattle Mariners $ 87,959,833
Detroit Tigers $ 82,612,866
Baltimore Orioles $ 72,585,582
Toronto Blue Jays $ 71,915,000
San Diego Padres $ 69,896,141
Texas Rangers $ 68,228,662
Minnesota Twins $ 63,396,006
Washington Nationals $ 63,143,000
Oakland Athletics $ 62,243,079
Cincinnati Reds $ 60,909,519
Arizona Diamondbacks $ 59,684,226
Milwaukee Brewers $ 57,568,333
Cleveland Indians $ 56,031,500
Kansas City Royals $ 47,294,000
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 46,717,750
Colorado Rockies $ 41,233,000
Tampa Bay Rays $ 35,417,967
Florida Marlins $ 14,998,500

% of 2005 Revenue spent on 2006 Payroll:

79% Washington Nationals
79% Chicago White Sox
74% New York Yankees
70% Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
67% Toronto Blue Jays
66% Detroit Tigers
62% Minnesota Twins
60% Houston Astros
60% Boston Red Sox
59% Los Angeles Dodgers
59% St Louis Cardinals
57% San Francisco Giants
56% New York Mets
56% Atlanta Braves
55% Chicago Cubs
53% Oakland Athletics
53% Philadelphia Phillies
52% Milwaukee Brewers
51% Seattle Mariners
49% Baltimore Orioles
48% Cincinnati Reds
48% Texas Rangers
47% San Diego Padres
45% Kansas City Royals
44% Arizona Diamondbacks
43% Pittsburgh Pirates
40% Cleveland Indians
32% Tampa Bay Devil Rays
31% Colorado Rockies
15% Florida Marlins

Naturally no one spends all their revenue, but when you see 11 teams under the 50% mark, and all but 4 teams below the 70% mark you have to ask yourself what the truth really is:

Is it more likely that my owner is a greedy scumbag trying to perpetuate the idea He cant spend anymore money so you wont blame him for not doing so...

or

Is it more likely that the numbers and figures in regards to all of this are completely false.

People arguing for a salary cap are just ignorant of the facts.

Wow you could not be more off if you tried. How about all the expenses besides players payroll? Like advertising, executive payrolls, scouts, stadium expenses, the list goes on and on. If you add in all those expenses then whats the bottom line look like now? exactly and if payroll doesnt matter lets look at how many times the Yanks have missed the playoffs...once in more then a decade. Stop fooling yourself payroll matters.

Jeffy25
07-20-2010, 08:01 PM
Wow you could not be more off if you tried. How about all the expenses besides players payroll? Like advertising, executive payrolls, scouts, stadium expenses, the list goes on and on. If you add in all those expenses then whats the bottom line look like now? exactly and if payroll doesnt matter lets look at how many times the Yanks have missed the playoffs...once in more then a decade. Stop fooling yourself payroll matters.

yup, and I am not a pro baseball teams accountant, but I do a lot of accounting

and here is something a tiny bit closer

http://www.subtraction.com/2009/11/08/watching-yankees-spending


and either way, it doesn't matter how much teams make, or spend, it's all about spending it smart

salary cap, as I have said in the other thread would be God awful for Major League Baseball and will only hurt the sport, not help parity

stupidmop
07-20-2010, 08:13 PM
Giants.

I think something should be down to help competitive balance in the game. Salary cap is just one of many solutions. I noted in the other thread that I think changing how the minor league system works would also achieve that goal.

Yankees Suck
07-20-2010, 08:30 PM
Red Sox and No

Yankees Suck
07-20-2010, 08:31 PM
Wow you could not be more off if you tried. How about all the expenses besides players payroll? Like advertising, executive payrolls, scouts, stadium expenses, the list goes on and on. If you add in all those expenses then whats the bottom line look like now? exactly and if payroll doesnt matter lets look at how many times the Yanks have missed the playoffs...once in more then a decade. Stop fooling yourself payroll matters.

He brings up a great point. There are some owners of teams who are more worried about the money that is going into their pocket rather then what their team actually does.

Bryrob58
07-20-2010, 08:36 PM
Rays - No

Msg me if you think I'm off my rocker.

Pre
07-20-2010, 09:59 PM
Cubs - Yes

Mike Oxlong
07-21-2010, 12:56 PM
Keep 'em coming.

jules77
07-21-2010, 01:05 PM
Mets

gottaHaveHart
07-21-2010, 01:10 PM
brewers

The Jokemaker
07-21-2010, 01:40 PM
Yankees - No