Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 221
  1. #136
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,782
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Would you agree or disagree with a statement saying the NFL has consistently had more parity over the past couple decades than other pro leagues? How was it they did that?
    To me, this question is way more multi-layered than this though. There's too many differences between each sport to attribute competitive parity to only the financial structure. Just from a super high level, having an elite qb almost guarantees playoffs. Guys like Brady, manning, Rodgers, ect make the playoffs at a very high rate. Counter that to baseball, where Mike trout might be one of the greatest to ever play the game and he rarely makes the playoffs. There's a multitude of other factors, but parity between sports is not just due to financial structure.

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,782
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    You’re wrong, revenue sharing wouldn’t create an arbitrary cap but it might create an effective cap because that’s the way markets work. This wouldn’t stop teams from choosing to go in the red when they have a core group they want to keep together for a WS push or horde cash while all their talent is in the minors but it would give teams the resources and flexibility to try and be as competitive as they can.

    And a floor is not the only way to keep teams from just pocketing the revenue sharing. The owners could agree that teams need to be competitive by winning a certain number of games over a 6 year rolling period. If they fail to reach that number they can be forced to sell their team to new ownership. If teams can be competitive on the cheap, good for them. If another owner would rather spend beyond what the revenue sharing brings in, good for them.

    And even if the owners decide to add a floor to keep some teams from just keeping the money, that doesn’t mean you need a cap. And while a floor would get no objections from the union, a cap would be dead on arrival, because it is literally a cap on salaries.

    You’re also failing to give credit to what a strong revenue sharing would do to the team narratives around the league. No one would be able to claim they’re a poor small market team that can’t afford to go after big names or sign their home grown talent. We let immensely wealthy people off the hook for not being willing to spend on their teams because they can point to the rich Yankees and Dodgers who can spend a ton of money and turn a profit. With similar revenue streams no team would have a spending advantage or a spending excuse.
    Given what we've seen in recent seasons, which is the largest markets refusing to spend over the luxury tax or actively manuevering to get under the tax, what makes you think teams are going to consistently operate in the red often enough to offset the benefits of a cap floor system?

    And it's all over baseball. The Cubs, who won their first WS in 100 years in a large market claim they're cash strapped and won't spend over the tax. Boston, who's won 4 times since 2004 after going almost 100 years between winning one is actively shopping one of the best young players in the gsme because they can't afford him. They're also looking to dump salary and claim they can't take any more on. The dodgers, who have a billion dollar TV deal maneuvered to get under the tax and doesn't appear to be adding much salary even though they've been on the brink of winning a ring a few straight years.

    Even the flipside of the coin. I'm a brewers fan and we slashed payroll by like $20 mill after making the playoffs 2 straight years for the first time in my memory (I'm 30). So it's not just the big markets.

    And even teams like Houston, who have spent over during their window, had bottom of the barrel salaries for a few years too.

    It just feels like this arguement is just blindly optimistic that teams are willing to overspend. Once and awhile, they may overspend. But given the recent history, it seems unlikely that teams will consistently overspend often enough to make the upside worth the downside risk of no floor. And forcing ownership sales is just silly. No chance that ever happens.

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    Posts
    16,077
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    This could never work. Unless that number is like 400 wins.

    If a team is willing to spend 150 million a year, and they still don't get enough wins, they should be forced to sell? It's very unlikely, but you understand what I'm trying to say.

    Because of RSN's, I think it's very difficult to have full revenue sharing, like the NFL does. Not every team contributes the same amount, but every team gets an equal cut back. Maybe teams that don't spend an established amount of revenue on payroll, lose a portion or all of their revenue sharing. Something should be done to stop the pocketing of money by small market teams that other teams give them to help with expenses.
    But the problem with revenue sharing is that salaries are so far gone that it doesn't make anywhere near the impact. For example, and I will use contracts given this year, the Marlins are given 30 million in revenue sharing to spend. Okay, I go out and sign Cole Hamels (18 million), Steve Cishek (6 million), Martin Maldonado (2 years, 7 million, 3.5 million per), and 2B Asdrubal Cabrera (1 year, 2.5 million).

    I have spent 30 million like a good GM because that is what I have been given. Knowing what we know about the Marlins, are they any closer to the playoffs, let alone a World Series with these 4 signings and 30 million added payroll?
    Eichel Tower

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,782
    Quote Originally Posted by ccugrad1 View Post
    But the problem with revenue sharing is that salaries are so far gone that it doesn't make anywhere near the impact. For example, and I will use contracts given this year, the Marlins are given 30 million in revenue sharing to spend. Okay, I go out and sign Cole Hamels (18 million), Steve Cishek (6 million), Martin Maldonado (2 years, 7 million, 3.5 million per), and 2B Asdrubal Cabrera (1 year, 2.5 million).

    I have spent 30 million like a good GM because that is what I have been given. Knowing what we know about the Marlins, are they any closer to the playoffs, let alone a World Series with these 4 signings and 30 million added payroll?
    Couple things, while I don't fully agree with the wider revenue sharing is better than a cap template, the idea is that while the marlins have only gotten marginally better, teams like the yankess, astros, dodgers, red Sox and the other perrenial high spenders have likely regressed due to their payrolls almost certainly come down.

    And that being said, you're taking an example of a team that's currently devoid of talent. But if we back that out a little bit, we can use the same marlins as an example of a team thats traded 4 all star caliber position players recently. If there's a more even revenue sharing system, it's possible at least a few of yelich, Stanton, ozuna and realmulto are still on the marlins.

    There's definitely a ramping up process for any new system. It's the biggest mistake the nba made. When they received an influx of cash, they dumped it all in one year and a bunch of scrubs like timofey mozgov and Matthew delavedova got huge, undeserving deals because money was there. That actually hurt future free agents since teams now spent unrealistically. If they would have grown that year by year, the money would have been more evenly dispersed and the top to mid guys for a few years would have all gotten extra dough, not just the guys who were fortunate enough to be free agents that year.

    Changing the structure in any way is a long term solution. It's not an expectation that every team will be equal and have similar talent in year 1.

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,257
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Would you agree or disagree with a statement saying the NFL has consistently had more parity over the past couple decades than other pro leagues? How was it they did that?
    I pay no attention to football, so I'm not educated enough to answer that question, or how the sport is balanced enough to say if it's related to the financials or due to the competitive balance of their financial system.

    Basically, I can't comment with any education.

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,257
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    This could never work. Unless that number is like 400 wins.

    If a team is willing to spend 150 million a year, and they still don't get enough wins, they should be forced to sell? It's very unlikely, but you understand what I'm trying to say.

    Because of RSN's, I think it's very difficult to have full revenue sharing, like the NFL does. Not every team contributes the same amount, but every team gets an equal cut back. Maybe teams that don't spend an established amount of revenue on payroll, lose a portion or all of their revenue sharing. Something should be done to stop the pocketing of money by small market teams that other teams give them to help with expenses.
    I mean you could do something where they are forced to sell if they don't win 390 games over 6 years (65 per year) and they don't spend at least X amount of their revenue over those 6 years (say 40%)

    If they are rebuilding during those 6 years, but are spending massively at the beginning or the end of the rebuild to compliment the team, clearly they are doing something to try to win at some point.

    The O's are going to suck for awhile now, but they are stuck with bad contracts from their last window for the next 3 years. They are going to run $100M payrolls the next 3 years while they start their rebuild, then they'll carry a low payroll for the next 3 years. Maybe they only win 350 games over the next 6 years, but they will have spent quite a bit on player salaries during this time period, as well signing bonuses on drafted players at the top. Then after 6 years, they'll likely start trying to build around that team.

    There is a way to do that.

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,257
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    Given what we've seen in recent seasons, which is the largest markets refusing to spend over the luxury tax or actively manuevering to get under the tax, what makes you think teams are going to consistently operate in the red often enough to offset the benefits of a cap floor system?

    And it's all over baseball. The Cubs, who won their first WS in 100 years in a large market claim they're cash strapped and won't spend over the tax. Boston, who's won 4 times since 2004 after going almost 100 years between winning one is actively shopping one of the best young players in the gsme because they can't afford him. They're also looking to dump salary and claim they can't take any more on. The dodgers, who have a billion dollar TV deal maneuvered to get under the tax and doesn't appear to be adding much salary even though they've been on the brink of winning a ring a few straight years.

    Even the flipside of the coin. I'm a brewers fan and we slashed payroll by like $20 mill after making the playoffs 2 straight years for the first time in my memory (I'm 30). So it's not just the big markets.

    And even teams like Houston, who have spent over during their window, had bottom of the barrel salaries for a few years too.

    It just feels like this arguement is just blindly optimistic that teams are willing to overspend. Once and awhile, they may overspend. But given the recent history, it seems unlikely that teams will consistently overspend often enough to make the upside worth the downside risk of no floor. And forcing ownership sales is just silly. No chance that ever happens.
    I just wanted to comment on this one piece.

    The Cubs bring in about $550M a year in revenue.

    The idea that they are cash strapped is a joke. They just don't want to go over the tax.

    They could support a $250M payroll. They want to reset their penalty this year so they can go over it without the high penalties long term.

    The tax is doing what the owners wanted it to do.
    The Cubs and Red Sox aren't in free agency right now because of it. Which got rid of two large suitors in free agency for the players that were there, and made both teams attempt to flood the market with highly paid players that teams would consider taking instead of buying a free agent (Price, Bryant, Betts, etc)

    If the luxury tax didn't exist, the Cubs probably bring Casty back on the best contract he could get.

    But, because they want to reset that penalty, he is left asking the Rangers to pay him more, and they have no reason to because nobody else is buying what he's selling. So now he's going to settle for a mid market contract.

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,257
    Quote Originally Posted by ccugrad1 View Post
    But the problem with revenue sharing is that salaries are so far gone that it doesn't make anywhere near the impact. For example, and I will use contracts given this year, the Marlins are given 30 million in revenue sharing to spend. Okay, I go out and sign Cole Hamels (18 million), Steve Cishek (6 million), Martin Maldonado (2 years, 7 million, 3.5 million per), and 2B Asdrubal Cabrera (1 year, 2.5 million).

    I have spent 30 million like a good GM because that is what I have been given. Knowing what we know about the Marlins, are they any closer to the playoffs, let alone a World Series with these 4 signings and 30 million added payroll?
    No, of course not. The Marlins need to spend that $30M on their farm system and on signing bonuses for good draft picks. Maybe one year fliers like Hamels that they can flip at the deadline to add more prospects.

    The Marlins don't need to be competing for the playoffs. They aren't going to win their division. They should be rebuilding. Having teams rebuild isn't a bad thing for the sport.

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,257
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Well the browns were predicted to win their division this year. The bears actually did win their division last year. The lion have made the playoffs multiple times recently.
    You are right that it is a difficult question and hard to define parity.
    Off the top of my head I would say there are about 20 nfl teams that believe they can win the Super Bowl next year. MLB not so much IMO.
    Dunno if you saw this, but can you please share this link?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Please share the link and quote where he ever said anything remotely close to this.

    The union has directly opposed a cap for decades, it's the owners that want it. Not the players or their representatives.

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    I just wanted to comment on this one piece.

    The Cubs bring in about $550M a year in revenue.

    The idea that they are cash strapped is a joke. They just don't want to go over the tax.

    They could support a $250M payroll. They want to reset their penalty this year so they can go over it without the high penalties long term.

    The tax is doing what the owners wanted it to do.
    The Cubs and Red Sox aren't in free agency right now because of it. Which got rid of two large suitors in free agency for the players that were there, and made both teams attempt to flood the market with highly paid players that teams would consider taking instead of buying a free agent (Price, Bryant, Betts, etc)

    If the luxury tax didn't exist, the Cubs probably bring Casty back on the best contract he could get.

    But, because they want to reset that penalty, he is left asking the Rangers to pay him more, and they have no reason to because nobody else is buying what he's selling. So now he's going to settle for a mid market contract.
    Maybe it is the repeater tax portion of the luxury tax, but honestly, this is where you and I philosophically differ. I dont think cubs ownership and alot of the other owners want to have that big of payroll. The luxury tax provides a convenient out more so than a true financial deterrent.

    Like the brewers claim to have operated in the red last year and that's part of the reason payroll is down. I don't truly buy that for a second. They made some major improvements to their spring training facities, which was long overdue, so maybe if they ate the cost in 1 year they were in the red, but I doubt they were operating at a level they couldnt make a profit at.

    And that philosophically is the difference. You think with revenue sharing teams will overspend what the cap would have been and players as a whole benefit. I look at the last few years of suppressed salaries and think there's no way owners spend more as a whole unless they're forced too. It worked for the players in the past, but given recent history, not negotiating a guaranteed portion of revenue seems like a huge risk.

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,896
    2010-2019 MLB regular season win %
    NYY - .569
    LAD - .567
    STL - .555
    WAS - .543
    BOS - .538
    TB - .531
    CLE - .528
    TEX - .520
    ATL - .520
    OAK - .518
    MIL - .509
    LAA - .507
    SF. - .507
    CHC - .504
    ARI - .490
    NYM - .490
    TOR - .490
    PIT - .489
    HOU - .487
    PHI - .486
    DET - .482
    CIN - .478
    MIN - .471
    KC. - .468
    SEA - .468
    BAL - .466
    COL - .464
    CHW - .459
    SD. - .456
    MIA - .436

    2010-2019 NFL regular season win%
    NE - .785
    PIT - .656
    GB. - .625
    SEA - .622
    NO - .604
    BAL - .583
    DEN - .583
    KC - .583
    ATL - .569
    PHI - .542
    DAL - .542
    CIN - .528
    IND - .521
    CAR - .510
    HOU - .500
    MIN - .500
    LAC - .500
    ARI - .490
    DET - .479
    CHI - .472
    SF. - .469
    NYG - .458
    MIA - .451
    LAR - .448
    NYJ - .424
    BUF - .424
    TEN - .417
    WAS - .413
    OAK - .389
    TB - .361
    JAX - .313
    CLE - .253

    NFL has 9 teams with a better win percentage than the Yankees and 8 teams with a worse win percentage than the Marlins.
    Not a perfect method but certainly interesting.
    Last edited by GasMan; 01-22-2020 at 08:51 PM.

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,782
    Things tend to even out over 162 alot more so than 16. 13-3 in the nfl, which is far from a crazy record, would be the equivilant of winning 131 games in baseball, which is insane.

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57,257
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    Things tend to even out over 162 alot more so than 16. 13-3 in the nfl, which is far from a crazy record, would be the equivilant of winning 131 games in baseball, which is insane.
    But over 10 years, that football record is for 160 games, or one full season.

    Those Patriots are a 127 win baseball team, and the Browns are a 41 win baseball team.

    You can't say it's too small of a sample size, the football records are that of a single baseball season.

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Dunno if you saw this, but can you please share this link?
    Sorry didn't see this. I will try and find the exact link but will give you this in the meantime.

    https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-baseb...224638354.html

    " Blasphemous though another option sounds, one veteran agent said recently: “We’re entering a world now where we may be better having a cap.” Though an MLB official downplayed the desire for one – “Whether it’s by cap or by nature, there’s going to be a percent teams spend on players,” he said, pointing to around 50 percent of revenues going to players, “and how you want that allocated, we really don’t care” – the agent’s admission highlights the league’s gains over the last 20 years. "

    Heres another link

    https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mlb-play...payroll-floor/

    Grow found that players’ share of revenue had peaked at 56% in 2002 and declined to 38% in 2015.

    Ironically, a cap (with a floor) system, against which the MLBPA has fought in the past (see: the 1994 strike), would perhaps now best serve players.

    The other major North American pro sports have cap-and-floor systems that guarantee players a certain percentage of revenue, typically around 50%, when including benefits. What’s remarkable to this author is that, while baseball has a soft salary cap in the form of its luxury tax, while the industry has a mechanism to limit spending, there is no floor, no mechanism, to force spending on the lower-end of payrolls in a $10 billion industry where smaller-market teams enjoy revenue-sharing.
    And this...

    https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-mlbpa-has-a-problem/

    Recognizing all that, some folks – including, perhaps even Scott Boras – are of the mind that the MLBPA should consider doing the unthinkable: agree to a salary cap.

    Because the salary caps in the other pro sports are generally fixed at a certain percentage of the league’s overall revenues, a salary cap could – rather counter-intuitively – help reverse the recent trend by allocating a higher share of league revenues to the players.

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    10,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    But over 10 years, that football record is for 160 games, or one full season.

    Those Patriots are a 127 win baseball team, and the Browns are a 41 win baseball team.

    You can't say it's too small of a sample size, the football records are that of a single baseball season.
    You also can't directly compare the winning percentage of a football team with that of a baseball team............for one, football teams spend an entire week or more preparing for each game, customizing their approach to each game focused specifically on their next opponent......baseball teams have no time to do that other than a pitcher having 5 days between starts.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •