Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 162
  1. #121
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    33,051
    for the teams that have trouble attracting players to their team, why should they overpay other players in order to meet the floor?
    if they have to overpay a lower tier free agent it's only going to cause other free agents to want more, because if Xplayer just got Y$ and they are better then they deserve more.


    Į\_(ツ)_/Į

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    44,973
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    for the teams that have trouble attracting players to their team, why should they overpay other players in order to meet the floor?
    if they have to overpay a lower tier free agent it's only going to cause other free agents to want more, because if Xplayer just got Y$ and they are better then they deserve more.
    I think players are concerned that there are rebuilding teams that have lower payrolls than individual players. Like the Mets and Dodgers are paying Scherzer and Bauer more than some teams have whole payrolls this season. The gap between those who spend and those who don't gets wider as salaries increase.
    Last edited by metswon69; 12-02-2021 at 02:02 PM.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    13,522
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    for the teams that have trouble attracting players to their team, why should they overpay other players in order to meet the floor?
    if they have to overpay a lower tier free agent it's only going to cause other free agents to want more, because if Xplayer just got Y$ and they are better then they deserve more.
    Why is it a bad thing if mediocre guys get paid by the way? I see this argument all the time and it's kind of just bad planning. If you are forced to overpay bad players to meet a floor, you're kind of poorly run to be honest. Extend your own guys, frontload contracts when you're bad. The NFL doesn't have issues with teams meeting the floor and they have unequal markets from an attractiveness standpoint. Or use the floor to buy prospects from teams who want to spend or are close to the cap.

    Undesirable markets tend to not exist when the undesirable market has money to spend. Again, look at the NFL. Teams may prefer a destination and some markets cna pay a little less for guys, but at the end of the day, the mighty dollar almost always wins. If I can pay more than you, alot of the warts with my team tend to look better.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,105
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    Why is it a bad thing if mediocre guys get paid by the way? I see this argument all the time and it's kind of just bad planning. If you are forced to overpay bad players to meet a floor, you're kind of poorly run to be honest. Extend your own guys, frontload contracts when you're bad. The NFL doesn't have issues with teams meeting the floor and they have unequal markets from an attractiveness standpoint. Or use the floor to buy prospects from teams who want to spend or are close to the cap.

    Undesirable markets tend to not exist when the undesirable market has money to spend. Again, look at the NFL. Teams may prefer a destination and some markets cna pay a little less for guys, but at the end of the day, the mighty dollar almost always wins. If I can pay more than you, alot of the warts with my team tend to look better.
    Undesirable markets tend to not exist when the undesirable market HAS MONEY TO SPEND. Just saying

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    38,324
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Undesirable markets tend to not exist when the undesirable market HAS MONEY TO SPEND. Just saying
    They all have money to spend. Some just choose not to.

    Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,105
    Quote Originally Posted by goingfor28 View Post
    They all have money to spend. Some just choose not to.

    Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
    We all got money to spend, just different amounts. No reason the Yankees get to spend more and pocket more than the Rays.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    13,522
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    We all got money to spend, just different amounts. No reason the Yankees get to spend more and pocket more than the Rays.
    Agree. Yes, the owners of the Rays, Brewers, Athletics ect could probaby spend more on their teams and not have it have any real impact on their financial situation. But this idea that some teams get to field significantly higher payroll teams and also most likely bring in higher profits is just dumb.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    63,186
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    We all got money to spend, just different amounts. No reason the Yankees get to spend more and pocket more than the Rays.
    I wouldn't say that there is no reason that a team like the Yankees gets to spend more and pocket more than other teams.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,105
    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    I wouldn't say that there is no reason that a team like the Yankees gets to spend more and pocket more than other teams.
    If the point is to have a competition where 30 clubs are trying to build a team to win as many games as possible then there is no reason. They should all be capable of spending and making equivalent amounts of money otherwise the competition is tainted from the outset and you will continue to see teams use economics as a reason to not compete. The fact that we as fans of the sport are spending this much time discussing the economics of baseball is a symptom of this problem. We should be able to assume our team wants to win and has the resources to make a legitimate attempt to win. Thirty teams should show up to spring training every year with a reasonable hope to at least make the playoffs otherwise why field a team? Why root for those teams that are taking a year (or 5 or 10) off? They need to make the revenue streams equivalent, allow teams to relocate to cities that can make them economically feasible or contract the teams that canít afford to compete.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    5,783
    @gasman so would you be in favor of a floor/ceiling that were close together?
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,105
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    @gasman so would you be in favor of a floor/ceiling that were close together?
    No. Cap/floors donít make poor teams richer.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    Posts
    16,368
    As I have said before when it comes to a lockdown: It's sad that you have billionaires and millionaires fighting over money.
    Eichel Tower

  13. #133
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    5,783
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    No. Cap/floors donít make poor teams richer.
    Your goal is to make poor teams richer?
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,105
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Your goal is to make poor teams richer?
    My goal would be to not have poor and rich teams. As long as you do they will make this about economics as a reason to not be competitive. Besides, as long as they canít maximize their revenues by picking their market they shouldnít have to choose revenues or competitiveness.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    63,186
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    If the point is to have a competition where 30 clubs are trying to build a team to win as many games as possible then there is no reason. They should all be capable of spending and making equivalent amounts of money otherwise the competition is tainted from the outset and you will continue to see teams use economics as a reason to not compete. The fact that we as fans of the sport are spending this much time discussing the economics of baseball is a symptom of this problem. We should be able to assume our team wants to win and has the resources to make a legitimate attempt to win. Thirty teams should show up to spring training every year with a reasonable hope to at least make the playoffs otherwise why field a team? Why root for those teams that are taking a year (or 5 or 10) off? They need to make the revenue streams equivalent, allow teams to relocate to cities that can make them economically feasible or contract the teams that canít afford to compete.
    I'd argue that a franchise that has been more successful and generated more money over the years should be able to spend/make more money. I'd also mention that the Yankees have only won one championship in the last 20 years. Money isn't everything when it comes to putting together a championship squad.

    I'm all for having some more parity but I think forcing every team to have the same size payroll is an overcorrection. Would be interesting to see how it shakes out though.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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
  •