Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Knicks 90, Raptors 87: "Shump and Lin wouldn't let us lose."

My Rant Against The Champions And MLB In General

So the evil empire did it again huh?  Bought themselves another World Series ring while MLB continues to sit back and allow the uncapped structure to ruin interest in at least 1/3 of the leagues cities. Once it became apparent that the 49ers "bought' a championship in 1994 and a year later the Cowboys did the same.  What did the NFL do?  Change the structure and invoke a salary cap.  Why is it that both sides,  the players and owners,  can't get together and come up with some type of agreement?  It is the only major sport without a cap and the interest in the league continues to slide partly due to it.

 

                          Let's breakdown the Yankees roster for a second shall we?

 

3B- Alex Rodriguez                           33 Million                                         Trade with Texas

SS- Derek Jeter                                21.6 Million                                       Drafted By Yankees

1B- Mark Teixeira                             20.6 Million                                       Signed As Free Agent

SP- AJ Burnett                                  16.5 Million                                       Signed As Free Agent

SP- CC Sabathia                             15.3 Million                                       Signed As Free Agent

RP- Mariano Rivera                         15 Million                                          Signed As International Free Agent

C- Jorge Posada                             13.5 Million                                       Signed As International Free Agent

OF- Johnny Damon                        13 Million                                           Signed As Free Agent

DH- Hideke Matsui                         13 Million                                           Signed As Free Agent

 

Total Team Salary: 208.4 Million

 

Only other players that came up through the Yankees system are Robinson Cano, Melky Cabrera, Joba Chamberlin, Brett Gardner and Phil Hughes.  Combined their 2009 salaries were 8.3 million,  less then 1/4 of Alex Rodriguez's salary.  Of the highest paid Yankees only Derek Jeter was originally drafted by the team. 

 

                                          In comparison let's look at other teams payrolls and highest paid players

                                                               Payroll                                   Highest Paid                               Salary

32. Pittsburgh Pirates                        25.2                                      SP- Paul Maholm                          2.5

31. Florida Marlins                              31                                         1B- Nick Johnson                         5.5

30. San Diego Padres                       37.8                                      OF- Brian Giles                             9.0

29. Oakland Athletics                         56.1                                      3B- Eric Chavez                           11.5

 

The bottom four teams in terms of payroll  combined payroll was 58 million less then the Yankees in 2009.  Even more astonishing the salary of Alex Rodriguez was more then the entire rosters of the Pittsburgh Pirates and Florida Marlins,  and only 5 million less then that of the entire San Diego Padres team. The Yankees payroll was 63 million more then the closest competitor,  yet another New York team.  

 

                           Even fans in cities like New York,  Chicago and Boston cannot claim this to be fair.  I wouldn't be complaining if i was a fan of the Yankees,  but as a observer of all four major sports i see this as an issue MLB must deal with soon.  Of course there are teams that break the mold and win despite a low payroll.  Our very own A's come to mind earlier this decade as do the Florida Marlins and Minnesota Twins today.  But that is the obvious minority in terms of success in MLB.  While teams in smaller in the NFL like Green Bay,  Indianapolis,  New Orleans and Arizona can be successful it just doesn't happen as much in MLB,  this soley due to the fact that baseball continues to deny it's differential between large and small markets.  Do you find it odd that all four of the teams that played in the LCS were top 10 in payroll?  It is time that MLB does something about this sooner rather then later

Poll
Does MLB need a salary cap
Yes, a hard cap like the NFL
57 votes
Yes, a soft cap like the NBA
43 votes
NO, it's fine the way it is
23 votes

123 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 133 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Teams with the highest payrolls always siphon talent from the rest of the league. It’s happened all too often with Oakland. In the end it leads to less fans, less casual fans and less exposure for the team in general. If things keep up MLB will be squawking contraction again.

by Jernskogen on Nov 5, 2009 5:33 PM PST reply actions  

Forget about caps

Have all money earned by any MLB team regardless of how it’s made minus the amount of money spent (except money spent on the roster, front office & coaching staffs). Then split ALL that money netted amongst every team in the Majors evenly. That money can be used for any purpose, but that money would be even. So you can spend as much or as little on payroll, but all teams will be working with the same amount of cash. Give as much to any player you want, but that’s it. If takes you into debt, you’re stuck paying that bill without any alternative revenue sources. Essentially you’d be taking the money away from the Uber Markets, not the players. Sure the players could be “hurt” by it, but they can still make as much as they can negotiate for because there’d be no cap.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 5, 2009 6:23 PM PST reply actions  

There has to be SOME kind of incentive for teams to actually market their product... right?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 5, 2009 8:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Meh

Centralize the sport. Let the owners own a percentage of the whole. This ranks up right up there with probability of a cap, so it’s entirely irrelevant. But if you’re really looking to even the playing field, that’s the way to do it. If anything, it was be an incentive for MLB to fully flesh out recognition of all clubs. Give them all even face time to maximize dollars. As it is, only a handful of teams really exist if you’re watching EPSN, Fox, etc. They wouldn’t be able to get away with that if they had to rely on the smaller markets to increase their earnings.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 5, 2009 11:48 PM PST up reply actions  

If you're the Yankees, what's your incentive to sell out to MLB?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 6, 2009 12:18 AM PST up reply actions  

Well

The great part of that is that it isn’t up to the Yankees. You don’t have to have 100 percent consent when negotiating the collective bargaining agreement. It’s like this in all 4 major AMERICAN sports.

         I am sure that the 49ers, Cowboys, and Giants didn’t vote for the salary cap last decade. As i am sure the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls and Cetics didn’t vote for the NBA’s CBA following the lock out. Well some may say that the Yankees are the most impressionable franchise in MLB, well that is true, but it doesn’t mean that something can’t or won’t get done without their consent. When the NFL placed a cap following a CBA agreement who were the most influential franchises at that time? San Francisco and Dallas.

                See what i am getting at?

"Cannot play with them. Cannot win with them. Cannot coach with them. Can't do it. I want winners. I want people that want to win!!!"

by nocal81(Vincent) on Nov 6, 2009 1:01 AM PST up reply actions  

No, I don't

I understand how you can have a change of rules leading to a salary cap. That’s fine.

I do not understand how you can have a forcible expropriation of most of the Yankees’ equity by MLB, no matter how many owners vote for it. How else are you going to “centralize the sport”?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 6, 2009 10:24 AM PST up reply actions  

That part's easy

Just kick them and Red Sox out of the league. They don’t have to share their revenue, but the rest of the league doesn’t have to play them. It’s the “lock out” version amongst owners. Yes, I’m serious. This is my ridiculous, impractically impossible scenario that could never ever happen and I’m going to make it work however I see fit :)

Alternatively, they could try killing their territorial rights and stick the A’s and any other team looking for a new stadium in the NY area and create more competition for NY dollars.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 6, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions  

None whatsoever

A) A cap is highly unlikely
B) Revenue sharing to the extent I suggest will NEVER happen.

It has nothing to do with the Yankee’s willingness to accept that though. It’s mostly because MLB owners as a whole are greedy little bastards who are convinced the best way to make money is to do exactly what they’ve been doing. (and maybe it is). If (and I’m assuming here), it would require a 75% approval to make it happen amongst owners. It would require 8 teams to be against it. Getting the first 15 to accept likely will be easy since they’d all get a bigger piece of the pie. That leaves you with 8 of the 15 with each potentially getting less and less then losing a chunk. So nope, highly improbable it would make the vote. And none of that involves the player’s union stepping in and throwing a fit about monopolies and collusion, etc.

But like I said, the probability of this actually happening is nil. But, if you were truly looking to get competitive balance, this would be the way to do it. Everyone would be on equal footing to start with and it would all get determined by who makes the best moves, not who could buy their way out of their mistakes.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 6, 2009 7:56 AM PST up reply actions  

Exactly

Splitting all the money will never happen, and gives teams no incentive.

It would never work anyway. The better players would still go to NY and Boston for less money, because of endorsements and national media attention.

by antigiants on Nov 6, 2009 8:51 AM PST up reply actions  

I was thinking about just this topic today...

My bottom line is that the field upon which MLB teams play should be level…..all teams should have the same opportunity to acquire players and develop their teams equitably and by doing this maybe really compete. It is no surprise that the Yankees can buy any player they want. They can outbid any team they like. How can the competition – when you get to acquire the best players – be fair?? There have been years (like the last 9) where they didn’t win the series, but how many playoff series have they been in? Seven of the past 10 – if I counted right.

I like BOTH the ideas posted above – salary caps and revenue sharing – as possible ways of addressing the inequities in this system. Just think of how MANY teams in baseball could benefit from either of those changes. If those salary numbers are per year – it is just obscene…I mean REALLY……what the hell do you even DO with 33 million a year??? Has it been effective in Football? Then, it seems like something that could be done for the game.

Other ideas?? How about capping the number of times a team can win the championship?!? or handicapping the score?? Oh yeah – how about sharing players?? I know I’m being silly…..but it’s really tough for a team like our beloved A’s to be David to the Yankee’s Goliath.

"The trouble with baseball is that it is not played the year round." Gaylord Perry

by BERRYJO on Nov 5, 2009 6:56 PM PST reply actions  

"It is the only major sport without a cap"

It is the only major American sport without a cap.

by Graham MacAree on Nov 5, 2009 7:20 PM PST reply actions  

I'm not sure you really want to rely on the "we've had all of four champions in the last 18 years" EPL... here...

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 5, 2009 8:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Soccer, internationally, does pretty well without a cap.

Sure, it tends to stratify, but that in turn helps branding around the world. I’d argue that the Premier League is more successful with the current setup than it would be with large amounts of turnover at the top.

by Graham MacAree on Nov 6, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Aren't they governed by UEFA, though?

Who was it, Chelsea that was just banned from the transfer season next year?

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Nov 6, 2009 9:09 AM PST up reply actions  

Good, fuck them.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Nov 6, 2009 9:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Nah. I don't care that they spend big bucks.

My friend’s cousin played for Man U though.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Nov 6, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Not sure.

This is my friend

We grew up playing together. I got hurt, he went pro. He’s related to someone who played EPL though.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Nov 7, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Actually it does not do as well as some would think.

The top handful of teams from the major European leagues (Spain, England, Italy, etc.) remain competative thanks mainly to the ‘branding’ you spoke of. Everyone else is basically vying for the scraps in the form of domestic cups, UEFA Cup qualifcation and survival in top flight leagues.
Branding allows teams to spend well beyond their actual means and is big part of the reason the financial state of European soccer is in the mess it’s in. Look at Man Utd, or Valencia, or Leeds.
I’ll agree to a certain extent that these leagues are better without large amounts of turnover at the top, but I don’t want to just see the same three teams fighting it out for the title every year. At that point it’s not really much of a competition.

That rug really tied the room together...

by Streams Of Whiskey on Nov 6, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions  

The question really is whether or not competitive balance is in the best interest of the sport

I don’t think it is, despite wanting to see the Yankees/Red Sox win less (and being a Chelsea fan was more fun in mid-table mediocrity). I don’t think caps work for sports trying to expand their popularity around the world, which is what MLB is trying to do. You don’t see Burnley jerseys when you’re walking down the street over here, and you certainly don’t see non-Yankee/BoSox hats in the UK.

Some clubs are not doing very well (Pompey would be a much better example than Leeds), but the sport itself is flourishing.

by Graham MacAree on Nov 6, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm on the other side,

I really do think competative balance would help to expand world wide poularity. I think it’s much harder to drum up interest in a competition where only four teams (at best) out of twenty have a realistic shot at finishing number one.

What we have to remember here is that we’re not talking about sparking interest in a brand new league, like the MLS for example. In th case of European soccer, or even MLB, there’s already a fair amount of tradition and teams that will automatically attract fans (Yankees, Cubs, Barca, Liverpool, etc.). What parody will do is allow other teams a portion of the spotlight. The NFL is an example of this domestically.

49ers merch isn’t seen all over the place like it was in the 80’s, when they were winning and popular. On the other hand, Patriots gear is all over the place. 10 or 15 years ago, outside of New England, people would have laughed their ass off at you if you wore Pats merch. Winning breeds fans. When different teams have a chance to win, more peole are attracted. It makes for better story lines.

That rug really tied the room together...

by Streams Of Whiskey on Nov 6, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, I mean, why should I bother watching EPL soccer?

I can either a. become a frontrunner, b. root for a team I know has no chance of winning, or c. watch in the hope of competitive matches between high-level teams which are, for the most part, nonexistent.

It’s like college sports without any of the charm. No thanks. I’ll stick to watching tournaments where there’s at least some hope of an upset result.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 7, 2009 12:04 AM PST up reply actions  

As a member of b.

There are a lot of fun things about following a team with no chance of winning, but some of that is down to relegation being a possibility.

Others are European qualification and matches (which smaller clubs do get), local rivalry games, the look on people’s faces when they see you are an American supporting Blackburn Rovers (much like a Brit supporting the Pirates).

by ChuckBudd on Nov 7, 2009 6:14 AM PST up reply actions  

It's strange that I still hear Blackburn Rovers and think Alan Shearer.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Nov 7, 2009 8:51 AM PST up reply actions  

In terms of moneymaking, it's not nearly as profitable as the American sports

In terms of interest, the league tables in the major European leagues are a complete snooze-fest.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 6, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions  

that's cause we don't play your games and you don't play ours.

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -Nevermoor

by Leopold Bloom on Nov 6, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions  

We should we care about worldwide exposure?

We like what we like. Others like what they like.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 2:03 PM PST up reply actions  

MLB clearly does care about worldwide exposure

You might not but it’s hard to argue that MLB’s strategy does not involve exporting baseball to Asia.

by Graham MacAree on Nov 6, 2009 2:21 PM PST up reply actions  

The problem with MLB vying for worldwide exposure

is that’s near impossible for them to do and is mostly a waste of their time/money. Europe is dominated by football, you’re not going to get much of a foothold there, certainly nothing worth your time and effort. Asia already has their own leagues, trying to gain a foothold their may be more realistic, but they’re pretty loyal to their own. Everywhere else, you’re looking at poorer nations and third world that won’t support or bring in the money MLB is going after.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 6, 2009 5:58 PM PST up reply actions  

So unfair

On opening day theirs 20 teams that know they will not go to the playoffs because their a small market team. Royals, Pirates, Nats ect. What a shame

by Tambo45 on Nov 5, 2009 8:08 PM PST reply actions  

Inept and/or apathetic ownership plays a part with many of those perennially teams, also.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 5, 2009 9:40 PM PST up reply actions  

That's why players insist on long-term contracts.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 5, 2009 10:25 PM PST up reply actions  

You know,

a salary cap would be great and all but sometimes a cap could get kinda annoying. You might need to sign a pitcher or something with limited cap space and it would kill depth. It would bring a whole new aspect to baseball. (Maybe if a salary cap was implemented, some GM might find out a way to find undervalued players and some guy could write a book about it called moneyball? I don’t know just some random thought.)

Personally I don’t think the mlb needs a salary cap. Small market teams shown they could win and big market teams shown they could lose.

Besides, the way baseball is right now, it’s more fun to watch the A’s beat teams like the Yankees with their payrolls.

by idunno723 on Nov 5, 2009 9:26 PM PST reply actions  

I'd rather see the A's beat teams like the Yankees in the playoffs instead of winning two of three in May

Small market teams winning it all is not common. It makes it more exciting when it happens but it’s not like a salary cap is going to make every team within ten games of each other. What it would do is at least give more teams a legitimate chance.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 5, 2009 10:54 PM PST up reply actions  

How do you figure they "Bought themselves another World Series ring"?

Yeah, they spent the most on payroll. So what? They’ve also had the highest payroll for how many years? And how many years had it been since they last won a ring? 8-9 years? Not a stellar return on their investment.

They may have bought themselves a better chance. Maybe bought themselves competitiveness. But they still had to go out and play the games and win to get the ring… just like everybody else.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 5, 2009 9:35 PM PST reply actions  

If Their Top Tier Players

were making that amount of money and came through their system then it would be hard to argue that they bought themselves a championship. But considering that Derek Jeter is the only one that was brought through the system lends credence to my point.

      For example if the A’s had kept onto Giambi, Tejada, Hernandez, Zito, Hudson and Mulder while having a payroll that parallels the Yankees then they wouldn’t have “bought themselves a championship” if they had won.

"Cannot play with them. Cannot win with them. Cannot coach with them. Can't do it. I want winners. I want people that want to win!!!"

by nocal81(Vincent) on Nov 5, 2009 10:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Weren't Posada, Hughes, Joba, and Pettitte drafted by NYY?

Not that I’d ever be caught dead defending the Lamekees, but they did draft and develop those guys.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 5, 2009 10:15 PM PST up reply actions  

You forgot Mariano Rivera.

Not drafted, but signed as an amateur free agent (1990). Yanks are the only organization he’s ever been with.

Same with Robinson Cano (2001).

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 5, 2009 10:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes

Pettitte was drafted by the Yankees but did return as a free agent following a couple seasons with the Astros, so at this point i think he would have to be considered a free agent acquisition. I did list Chamberlin and Hughes as players coming up through the system. Correct me if i am wrong but wasn’t Posada an international free agent?

"Cannot play with them. Cannot win with them. Cannot coach with them. Can't do it. I want winners. I want people that want to win!!!"

by nocal81(Vincent) on Nov 5, 2009 11:07 PM PST up reply actions  

That says more to them signing the wrong players in the past than anything else

Each year, especially over the past decade, they’ve been trying to buy the title by outspending everyone else. Every year they failed, they tried that much harder to do it the next. This time they finally found the right combination, something that was bound to happen sooner or later. I don’t congratulate them for that.

The Yankees have a history of stuff like this even dating back to when they used the Kansas City A’s as a Major League farm team and before. It’s as much a part of their legacy as the 27 titles are.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 5, 2009 10:56 PM PST up reply actions  

More to the point

in the last decade, how many times have they been at least in the ALCS. How about in the playoffs?

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 5, 2009 11:57 PM PST up reply actions  

That's actually part of my point.

They signed good players, but they didn’t necessarily build a team. Having money no more guarantees a title than not having money guarantees last place. It helps, most certainly, but managing resources is still in the mix, too.

I’m not saying so much they deserve to be congratulated, more so that they don’t deserve to be dismissed or ridiculed for it.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 7:05 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, but having the money to buy multiple high-level free agents every year...

…basically guarantees they’re almost always going to be in the title hunt.

I just can’t get excited about that.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 6, 2009 8:56 AM PST up reply actions  

But that's just a natural part of business and the free market.

It can’t be (naturally) totally equal because individual scenarios and circumstances aren’t totally equal. Most fans are all in favor of free agency and players getting all they can, why should teams be any different?

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 9:25 AM PST up reply actions  

competitive balance would seem to be in the long-term interest of the entire league.

Sure, the Yankees and the Red Sox and Cubs and a handful of other teams in the short term enjoy a competitive advantage by being able to spend significantly more money, but when franchises like the Royals and the Pirates continue to do poorly year after year after year, it hurts the whole of baseball. People in those cities stop watching it altogether and in particular kids do not grow up watching it. We’re killing our fan base for the future, unless the projected future is six or eight Harlem Globetrotters and two dozen Washington Generals.

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -Nevermoor

by Leopold Bloom on Nov 6, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions  

I thought that for a long time, also...

…that competitive balance would benefit everybody in the league overall. I still believe it to a certain extent, but now I’m not so sure how much.

After many years of intending, last week I started reading Bill Veeck’s autobiography, and one of the things that is jumping out at me is that people had the same complaints 60 years ago that we hear today, yet it could easily be argues that the sport and the business of the sport is much stronger now that it was then.

As far as salary caps go to ensuring parity, I think the NFL is a good example. Salary caps cause an initial flourish of parity for awhile, then it still washes out to the owners who care and are competent rise to the top again, and those who don’t care and/or are incompetent sink to the bottom… again.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Much of the history of what's happened in the sport hasn't changed much...

…but I think part of that is where Selig has to be credited to some extent with marketing the game and the game itself just being something that endures even if Selig was late to the party with getting behind a network designed exclusively for baseball or baseball declining in popularity compared to football and basketball.

Aside from that, interleague play and the wild card has helped keep more fans interested and more teams in the playoff mix, and while we’ve been dealing with the steroids and PED aftermath it helped bring people back to the game following the strike. I think baseball could be even better if Selig was only more than just halfway decent.

As to salary caps, the key would be in not only having a max limit but also a minimum. That way there at least stands a better chance that the teams on the bottom won’t always be on the bottom if they have to actually try (and some just pretend to), but incompetent owners and uncaring ones are another problem entirely.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 6, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions  

As much as I dislike Selig, and loathe to give him credit for anything...

…I agree that he does deserve credit for several things. Not insignificant things, either. I was firmly in the Bob Costas anti-wildcard camp when the wildcard was first trotted out. Now, I am a complete convert and think it was a great idea. As just one example. (I’ve heard that Costas has since changed his mind also) I still dislike interleague play, though I understand why others like it… I just don’t.

Going back to Veeck’s book, he talked about how he saw the NFL in the 50s clearly steadily gaining fans and interest while MLB was declining in the same areas. (The book was published in 1962, so it doesn’t cover the eventual outcome of that scenario)

re: Your statements on salary caps, I agree 100%… if there would be a maximum, I believe there also should be a minimum, for the same reasons you state.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah

Another thing that I think really helps is the dominance of the internet in giving more diehard fans places like this to talk about the sport, teams, etc. Before it was Usenet, now this. On top of that, I do believe MLB has worked to cultivate more interest in the Minors overall and that’s another thing the internet can assist with, something I can attest to alone just by nature of me having a way to go take pictures at games.

With Minor League attendance stronger than it’s apparently ever been and more fans taking a greater interest in their prospects in order to track their progress, it leads to more overall interest. Never a bad thing, and that’s something the NFL can’t really do well and something the NBA only marginally has with the D-League.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 6, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions  

I've always thought if you have the cap/min

that the team wouldn’t have to actually reach the minimum, but anything under the minimum would get divided based on salary amongst the players. It would allow a team like the A’s who are rebuilding to not have to spend when they’re not ready as well as add a small incentive to sign with a team who has the potential to be under the minimum since you’re likely to take home a bonus you wouldn’t get for the same contract elsewhere.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 6, 2009 6:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Maybe, but if you allow for not being "ready" then there has to be a limit placed on it

Teams can’t be “rebuilding” and “not ready” for extended periods, I mean.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 6, 2009 10:20 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't understand how a team could somehow be "not ready".

I see MLB as the ultimate “big boy” league (for baseball). If you’re not ready, why do you even own a team?

If you mean “not ready to win” because you’re in the beginnings of a rebuilding mode, then I understand what you mean, but I still would not allow for that. In fact, I would place a penalty for falling below the minimum. I like your idea of distributing the difference between the players (as a one-time bonus*), but then I would add a penalty and match that overall number and divide it among the other owners. That should be enough motivation to get the cheap and/or apathetic owner to make sure he reaches the minimum.

FWIW: If it were up to me I would not place the minimum at some outrageous number. In today’s market maybe in the $35-$40M range. Or maybe 1/3 of whatever the maximum is. You’d still have pretty crappy teams, but you’d avoid the super-duper crappy teams where the “old guy” has 63 days of major league service under his belt.

  • Not to be counted as salary later when they argue things like arbitration.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 7, 2009 7:36 AM PST up reply actions  

I think MLB should just raise the damn minimum salary to something vaguely reasonable

It’s ridiculous that you have guys in their third years making $410,000 and then getting 900 percent pay raises in their fourth season.

Make that a million a year and suddenly you can’t logically have a payroll below $25M.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 7, 2009 9:42 AM PST up reply actions  

I'd be for this too.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 7, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions  

Maybe, but...

…some guys aren’t even worth the 410.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 7, 2009 1:01 PM PST up reply actions  

... in which case, you release them

Your point?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 7, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions  

You missed it.

The guy not… oh, never mind.

It makes more sense to start all players at $1M/yr just so the relative few that excel don’t have to suffer the indignation of a huge increase a couple years down the road.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 7, 2009 5:51 PM PST up reply actions  

I think the risk

is that too many of the marginal replacement level guys (or “vet” roster fodder) would likely be too expensive to be worth it requiring you to use inexperience guys in roles vets normally fill. Thought about it too, but felt that maybe that’s not such a bad idea.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 7, 2009 10:48 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm totally fine with teams being penalized for being under the minimum

But the point of the “bonus” redistribution of funds is to avoid signing bad contracts for players to make the minimum level. That’s how you wind up screwing yourself over. Yes, part of that is better management. But no fine for the first year and increasingly bigger and bigger (by the 3rd year you’re really getting screwed) should keep teams from being the Marlins. I definitely like the matching/dividing amongst owners part too, perhaps that’s what you do the second year and double and triple and quadruple etc. each subsequent year.

At some point in the rebuild mode you’re going to find yourself in a position (like the A’s are getting close to) where you want salary room so that as your players reach arbitration, you have some room to work with so giving a free year (even if it’s used every other year should be available, though you may want to add a 2 in 4 years penalty clause in there too). The key is to make sure that minimum money gets to the players as guaranteed money (the broader sense).

I’d also suggest all salary cap calculations include all players (and only players) on the 40 man roster including 60 DL players, but excludes players making the minimum and money used for draft, etc. If you reach the cap, you may need a way of filling out your roster, so the maximum a single player could get is the salary cap (which should be pretty high).

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 7, 2009 10:34 AM PST up reply actions  

If there were a hard salary cap...

…I think arbitration would have to be drastically altered, if not eliminated entirely. For the reasons you mention, it’s too unpredictable. You’d have to allow for teams to keep their salary structure predictable for a cap to work and for them to plan ahead appropriately.

Maybe as a concession to the players, slide back FA eligibility from six years to five years.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 7, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Not a big fan of that

But the owners would have to make some sort of HUGE concession in order for them to agree to it (which they likely never would). Possibly adding a few roster spots could happen too.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 7, 2009 10:50 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd be ok with a couple more roster slots.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 8, 2009 9:02 AM PST up reply actions  

As a former Washington Generals fan I can attest to this

After years of watching them lose and look like fools doing it, I just couldn’t watch anymore.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 6, 2009 6:09 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I'm not a fan of free agency

Not at all. It’s basically destroyed baseball. Now, I’m also not a fan of the owners being cheap and screwing the players over either. But there’s a balance there. I’d love to see them extend the rights to a player to 10 years.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 6, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions  

What would be the point of keeping free agency at all?

10 years? My god, that would cover 95% of all players.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 7, 2009 12:08 AM PST up reply actions  

Like I said. Not a fan of free agency.

I don’t have a problem with the arbitration process, it insures players a chance to get a fair salary increase and/or release if they’re not worth it. After the 6th or 7th year, if you want to dissolve any restraints on what a player could get out of arbitration (both plus & minus), I’m down for that too. After 6 years (or perhaps after 5) you could still make 20+ mil if you’re worth it and the team would then have to decide if exclusive rights to the player is worth the risk of what they might get out of the arbitration process. A lot players may not make it to free agency, but they’d still be able to make a substantial amount of money out of the process. If they’re team isn’t willing to take that risk, then they’re early free agents. Also adds the trade potential. Got a player you’re not willing to gamble with, but you know another team with top prospects is? Well, make the trade, they get a long term guarantee on the player as long as their willing to gamble, you get the hot prospects.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 7, 2009 10:50 AM PST up reply actions  

I cannot see any justification for the reserve system

other than to encourage teams to develop talent. That’s really about it. They should have enough player control to recoup their investment in the player… but anything beyond that is little better than theft.

How baseball was able to get away with the pre-free-agency system for 70 years is a complete mystery to me. Only a place as pathologically hostile to employee rights as America could ever think that system was a good idea.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 7, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Yes, the rest of the world is a paragon of virtue when it comes to employee rights. LOL!

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 7, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Personally I think it's vital to the integrity of the game

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 7, 2009 10:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Apparently this is some strange new use of the word "integrity" that I was not previously familiar with

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 7, 2009 11:39 PM PST up reply actions  

Maybe stability would be a better word

Imagine if MLB didn’t already have a fan base to rely on. Do you really think people would be both drawn to the game and take interest in any team at all if players jumped around at will from team to team? There would be people who would, sure, but an intrical part of maintaining a fan base is having people they recognize to cheer for. Especially if you’re in a position of not having a long history of winning or well, anything, to work with. People tie rather heavily to a big name player from the past and remember what they did, etc. That’s hard to do when he’s only there a few years and then gone and done bigger things for another team. It’s something that occurs by a players spending his entire career with your team to the point of familiarity and recognition, basically being interconnected with your team. Sure, MLB and other leagues can now get away with it, but then they had plenty of time where they could get acquainted with their players first before they were able to from the pre-FA era and to a lesser extent through the 6 years gained from the reserve system. Or am I completely misunderstanding your use of the reserve system?

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 8, 2009 9:12 AM PST up reply actions  

I tend to agree with this.

This is the unseen downside of the Swisher trade, IMHO. When Beane traded Nick, he traded the team’s personality. I believe they suffered a huge hit in identity for both fans and non-fans alike. Winning can help cover alot of that up, but we’re still not winning, and the non-fan… which outnumbers the serious fan by far… isn’t patient enough to wait 3-4 years. They’ll find something else to do.

Disclaimer: Not saying he was the only one, nor am I saying that he cannot be replaced. Just one example.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 8, 2009 9:21 AM PST up reply actions  

If you want players not to jump around from team to team,

you sign them to a long-term contract. That’s what people do in other fields. There’s nothing stopping a team from signing an 18-year-old to a 10-year deal… if they’re willing to commit to taking that risk.

The reserve system gives teams all the benefits of long-term contracts without any of the risks. Where do those benefits go? Some of them in the modern era go into the salaries of free agents, who are overpaid because young players are underpaid (and thus support the current system), but most of those benefits go straight into the pockets of the owners. Prior to free agency they ALL went straight into the pockets of the owners.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 8, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions  

In an industry that pays it's personnel

more than 8x what a normal person does at an entry level position, you should expect some sort of sacrifice as a basic part of the contract. We’re not talking about Joe Schmo on the street making 30/40k a year being forced to stay in one location while under paid in respect to his market value and contemporaries. We’re talking about a guy making a minimum of 400k (minor leagues excluded where the salary structure needs major revamping). Maybe you’re forgetting that this what the collective bargaining/union aspect of their deal gets them and not some woh is me individual suffering from unfair working conditions that aren’t of their own making. There are a lot of perks outside of the fact that they’re being paid an exorbitant amount of money to play a kid’s game. Part of that bargain is certain fundamental concessions to how your side of the deal goes. If you’re making that kind of money at a base level, I think you should be in a position where the functioning of the industry needs to be put first.

Now IF they were to go to a longer term reserve system as I suggest (more want than suggest, but whatever) I’d definitely see concessions on the owners side as well, including a higher entry level play, better guaranteed salary increases while within the reserve system, more arbitration years, etc. all keyed towards finding that balance of the high end FA money they used to get and the low end Reserve money (i.e. allowing the young players to get a fairer piece of the pie). The key to me is to find the balance of keeping players locked up and the need to be fair in how much of the overall profits they get for what they generate in profits for MLB as a whole.

I definitely agree that the biggest problem in all of this is the way in which the money is being allocated and it’s not right. I just suggest that there are better ways to be fair about it without the use of free agency.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 8, 2009 10:56 PM PST up reply actions  

You seem to be confusing the CBA with some kind of contract with society at large

That collective bargaining agreement was negotiated against the backdrop of a legal regime in which baseball owners can basically do whatever they want and have a blanket exemption from normal labor and antitrust laws.

I mean, no shit it’s unfavorable to the players.

The “quit whining, you’re making a kid’s game” plaint might be appropriate if the money that they were not being paid was being used to fund orphanages in Africa or something. Instead, it’s being used to line the pockets of billionaire fat cats. Not exactly a point of principle.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 9, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Sorry

But the players get a hell of lot more than anyone in any other industry except maybe Hollywood. The owner of the company shells out their money and they take liability and fair or not, in any company in the US, if large profits are paid, the owner basically takes a huge amount home and the employees, potentially working at below market value, get none of it. Now yes, they could go out and find a new job (as can any any MLB player). And in some industries non-competition clauses can be enacted (just like MLB players). Yes, admittedly it mostly doesn’t entirely compare, but I hardly see the CBA arrangement for MLB players unfair, for from it. Especially when our entire economy is based on billionaire fat cats lining their pockets like this. You think that would change at all if the players could make any make deals straight out of high school with whomever they want for whatever they want?

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 9, 2009 6:25 PM PST up reply actions  

that either party has a ridiculous amount of money is besides the point

It is in both the owners’ and players’ best interest to keep the status quo, as much as I hate to admit that. The players who just eked their way into MLB are surely making more than they could doing something else, and the best players have an initial payday far more than any of us dream of. I suspect many teams’ accountants like the Yankees/Sox/Cubs, as they consistently increase the attendance at visitors’ stadiums.

None of this will change (like so much else) until the incentives change. The Yankees and other top teams make money that comes down to the players, who in turn bring more overall attendance, that then bring more revenue to the team owner, who can thus pay the player more. It’s insidious, but true.

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

by cuppingmaster on Nov 9, 2009 6:42 PM PST up reply actions  

RJ Anderson from Fangraphs brought up a really, really important point about a salary cap:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-super-yankees-theory

…if you knock that $50M off the Yankees payroll [from instituting a salary cap], that doesn’t mean they cannot spend it, instead it simply means they must reallocate it to another part of the game. Now they can really go over-slot on a consistent basis. Or, if a hard-slotting system is imposed, they can reap the international talent market like none other. Not to mention the amount of front office talent they can add to the fold. Ranging from scouts to quantitative analysis guys to medical staff and so on.

A simple salary cap wouldn’t do it, at least not by itself. It sounds like nothing short of extremely heavy revenue sharing would work.

No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.

by danmerqury on Nov 5, 2009 9:37 PM PST reply actions  

That's not a really important point, it's a really silly point

Every serious analyst knows the amateur draft system is broken, too.

The post also manages to imply that the Yankees front office is completely incompetent along the way… right after they win a World Series… not exactly well-timed, I’d say…

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 5, 2009 10:51 PM PST up reply actions  

A high-spending incompetent front office in New York would be called the Mets.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 7:12 AM PST up reply actions  

I've already seen some Yankee fans arguing that...

…since they didn’t win a title this decade until now even though they had the highest payroll every year, it’s some sort of proof this is all somehow fair.

Uh, no. It just means they stunk at coming through in the end in spite of outspending everyone else by far. At least when the Red Sox were upping payroll to stay with the Yankees they actually won it all twice.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 5, 2009 10:42 PM PST reply actions  

AND one guy claimed Tampa Bay getting to the World Series justified the 'spending isn't everything' point of view

No, it means Tampa Bay caught lightning in a bottle just like the other teams that go on a run and either win a WS or get to the end and lose. The Diamondbacks dropped off without Johnson, Schilling and so on. The Marlins went back to being bad because of their typical fire sale so they wouldn’t HAVE to pay their best players, and other teams did not have the consistent playoff appearances the Yankees do.

But, you can’t convince a Yankee (or Red Sox fan for that matter) that it’s not an unfair system just because some lower payroll teams manage to win a few. Another argument I was seeing is even the teams with the 10th highest payrolls are still highly outspending the teams at the bottom, so they’re trying to buy a title too.

That gets the double Picard/Riker facepalm as far as I’m concerned.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 5, 2009 10:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Please don't tell me you think the Yankees and Red Sox are the ONLY teams trying to buy a title.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 7:11 AM PST up reply actions  

...just a few years after the Yankees won 4 straight.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 7:08 AM PST up reply actions  

Once now, twice then, 4 times before that...

…how selective do we want to get? Seriously, some of the comparisons being bandied about by various groups is getting completely absurd and irrelevant. It’s bordering on simple whining and jealousy.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 9:28 AM PST up reply actions  

It also reflects the expanded playoff system...

….which makes it much more likely that the best team won’t even get to the World Series, let alone win it.

The divisional series, in particular, are a total crapshoot….and they have the effect of disguising the dominance of teams like the Yankees and Red Sox.

The more obvious dominance of the Yanks during the 1950s was, in part, a result of the best team from each league automatically going to the Series each year.

There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.

by GreenNGoldSooner on Nov 6, 2009 7:45 PM PST up reply actions  

By the way...

…I don’t know how they ended but this is what the payrolls looked like to start the season:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090408&content_id=4170640&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 5, 2009 11:05 PM PST reply actions  

In a strange way, the Yankees did something that's very much reminscent of a small market team, this year

They dumped a lot of money into winning quickly, while the players they have are still performing, and under managable contracts (at least, by Yankees’ standards).

There are a number of players on that rosters that would appear to be nearing the end of their productive days; Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Rivera, Damon, Matsui are or were nearing their last years of being good (or at least, performing to their contract).

How different is this than the Marlins? Ok, so, the Yankees ‘blowing things up’ is going to look very different, but would you not expect to see a very different Yankees team in 2011/12?

When it comes down to it, the different between the Yankees and other teams isn’t so much being able to have a winning team, but more the ability to recover from losing their best players (to age, injury or being overpriced).

by bobnothing on Nov 5, 2009 11:32 PM PST reply actions  

Damon and Matsui are gone-- their contracts are up

Soon to be replaced by Matt Holliday, who is much better than them and probably will end up costing less money.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 6, 2009 12:25 AM PST up reply actions  

There's alot of speculation that Damon will be re-signed.

Not so Matsui.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 7:10 AM PST up reply actions  

And we all know that Matt Holliday is a slacker who doesn't give 100%....

….especially when he’s playing in the AL!

[/snark]

There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.

by GreenNGoldSooner on Nov 6, 2009 7:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Your Absoluiely Wrong!!!

Small market teams couldn’t sign Mark Texiera, AJ Burnett and CC Sabathia to long therm contracts. Without those three the Yankees finish 3rd in the AL East behind Boston and Tampa Bay

"Cannot play with them. Cannot win with them. Cannot coach with them. Can't do it. I want winners. I want people that want to win!!!"

by nocal81(Vincent) on Nov 6, 2009 1:04 AM PST up reply actions  

Reply Error

Darn SB Nation. Was meant as a reply to Bob!!!

         And your right Paul, not only will the Yankees sign a Matt Holliday type player i could see them dealing Hughes and/or Cabrera for a high priced upgrade at those positions. Of course Roy Halladay and Grady Sizemore come to mind. Yet adding more credence to the “Buying a championship” theory.

"Cannot play with them. Cannot win with them. Cannot coach with them. Can't do it. I want winners. I want people that want to win!!!"

by nocal81(Vincent) on Nov 6, 2009 1:08 AM PST up reply actions  

The same Texiera

Who could have gotten more money to play in Baltimore (speaking of teams who tried to spend to a championship and failed)?

So as to not do multiple replies in the same thread, to the revenue sharing argument at the top, I would say that the current sharing of merchandising revenues amongst all teams provides disincentive for teams like the A’s to go out and try to sign foreign talent (mostly Asian) who would provide a big boost in overseas merchandising revenue. We get 1/30th of the Ichiro shirt sales without having to pay him tens of millions.

by ChuckBudd on Nov 6, 2009 5:54 AM PST up reply actions  

I think one of the only way that things change are if....

The Yankee’s going on a huge winning streak of 4-5 World Series and the casual fan just ups and loses interest in MLB.

I will bet you that the Yankees are as good if not a better team in 2010 then this year. I mean remove Damon and Matsui, add Lackey, Holliday a few bullpen arms all before they probably sign Chapman. That is an awesome rotation and an upgrade in the Outfield.

by asfaninpismobeach on Nov 6, 2009 9:38 AM PST reply actions  

You mean like 10 years ago?

I think it’s the opposite. I think it’s the casual fan… “non-fan” as I call them… that LIKES dynasties.

Real fans like dynasties too… if it’s their team. I doubt many A’s fans were complaining like this in 1974.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 9:46 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm fine with Dynasties when they're earned by smart

player decisions. Not so much when they’re bought. There’s really no denying that the Yankees of this year were bought. Next year, if they do what a lot of people suspect they do, they’ll be buying it again as they’ve been trying to do for the last decade. Personally, I think if they had actually made smart player decisions over the course of the last decade, they’d likely have several more Series victories over the last decade based on how much they’re spending. Sports, as much as they are a business, aren’t one that works by standard business practices. Sports require more competition in order to maximize profit whereas most any other business requires less or no competition to maximize profits.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 6, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions  

This is part of my point in this thread, also.

Sure, they bought as many of the best players they could. “Bought a ring”, in a sense, I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but that’s only half the equation. You have to manage your resources as well. The Yankees have done that. Other teams have spent a buttload of money and never even had winning seasons, so just buying good players isn’t it all by itself.

I agree with you on the more competition part, btw.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 8:30 PM PST up reply actions  

See the thing that scares me and the real risk of allowing things to continue as is

is that the Steinbrenners are starting to make smarter moves, allowing their money to be spent on more rational players. They made a lot of bad moves over the last several years. Imagine if they had spent that money wisely, they could have been in the series 5 or 6 years in a row. As they stand now, there’s always that potential and that’s really good for the Yankees making bucket loads of money, not so much for the rest of the league. For all of MLB to make money, the rest of the league needs have a legitimate chance at the series. Not pretty when you look at how things stand right now.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 7, 2009 10:57 AM PST up reply actions  

I don't think it really matters.

As I mentioned in another thread (maybe it was here, I forget), I am currently reading Bill Veeck’s autobiography, and he and others had the same complaints about the Yankees in the 1950s. No FA, reserve system, lots of money… they got and kept all the best players. Theoretically, free agency was supposed to solve that. It didn’t. Salary caps were supposed to bring parity to the NFL. There was an initial flurry of parity for a few years, then it shook back down to the same well run teams dominating again.

Personally, I agree with the sentiment… I want competition, and not just for my team. I want competition all around. But, I think practical reality is that the cream always rises to the top regardless what’s done to alter that.

Having said all that, though, a salary cap (and minimum) would not bother me at all… though I don’t think much would change.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 7, 2009 12:49 PM PST up reply actions  

At least a salary cap (and minimum) would make it so teams like the Yankees...

…couldn’t just outspend everyone else. They’ve shown they’re starting to get the concept of actually evaluating talent based on their needs and how they’d help them, so they’d have to do a bit more of that in the future with a cap.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 7, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Here's the thing

It has worked. I have no issue with Dynasties created via SMART personnel decisions. Absolutely none whatsoever. That’s actually what should separate good teams and bad ones. If a team succeeds on even ground like that, awesome. That actually IS parity. When a team succeeds because they have something that absolutely no other team could possibly have (namely double the budget) that’s not parity. It’s not, nor should it be, about giving every team a shot at the being top dog just cause. It’s about giving every team similar/identical resources and seeing who uses them the best. If a team consistently succeeds or fails under those condition, it’s still fair.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 7, 2009 11:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Now we're talking parity in opportunity, not parity in effort, I think.

Theoretically, in a non-cap system, everybody DOES have the same opportunity, but I’m not sure even I’d go that far. To that end, though, I heard a blurb about this on the radio a couple days ago… said the Twins’ owner has enough money to buy and sell the Steinbrenner family several times over, they just choose to not spend it all on baseball. They still manage to put a good and entertaining product on the field, though.

Take the Bidwell family in the NFL. Their teams have sucked more often than not for literally decades. With a few notable exceptions, investing in the team to produce a solid winner just has not been important to them, and it shows.

On the flip side, in today’s financial climate, I do think that the Packers definitely benefit from the NFL’s current system. I think they need the communal aspect to be able to compete, while the Bidwells are happy just cashing the check. Phoenix should be a hotbed of football, but it’s not, but I digress…

I’m not sure if I’m now agreeing with you, or not. LOL!

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 8, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions  

I think you're introducing a whole new topic

But yeah, I care most about parity in opportunity. As for effort, well, setting cap & minimums doesn’t in an absolute term keep a management team like the Bidwells from not putting the effort, but if they’re forced to, you might as well maximize your forced investment (in theory). Ultimately an owner that doesn’t care about winning shouldn’t be involved in a MLB team. As for someone like Twin’s owner, you still have to make money and it’s seems like a seriously stupid move to compete in terms of payroll with the Yankees when you’re not bringing that kind of money in to offset it. You go broke doing that. Just makes what the Haas family did that much more special. But at the end of the day I’d rather be pissed at, say the Marlin’s owner, for not putting in the effort to win while on a truly even level (relatively speaking) than at the Marlin’s inability to put up 200+ million to keep up with the Yankees.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 8, 2009 11:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, after I posted I realized I was going off on a tangent.

As far as owners and spending, I’ve never considered it my right or entitlement to have an owner lose money in my interests.

I used to debate another person on another board about Schott/Hoffman. He felt they should spend whatever was necessary to put a winning team on the field and retain free agents. He felt it was their literal obligation to do so.

I wanted a good and winning team, of course, but I never expected them to operate in the red. In that end, I always appreciated the efforts of the Haas family, but they did so because they wanted to, not because they were obligated.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 9, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Totally agree with your side on that.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 9, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions  

It really all balances out in the end...

… if you consider how much they OVER pay for some free-agents. Honestly, you can look at their payroll as one huge numbers, but break it down to what they are actually recieving for their dollar and you can see that they are wasting as much money as they are probably recieving viable production for. ‘09 was obviously their best year in the past decade simply because they got their money’s worth. In the past few years they have spent a lot of money on the likes of Pavano, Clemens, etc. who never truly panned out while simultaneously inflating their payroll to another single large number. Mets are another great example of this. If THIS is paying for a championship, throwing large amounts of money at risks… then I say they can keep it. Let ’em.

by Tim Blekicks on Nov 6, 2009 10:55 AM PST reply actions  

They have been contenders every single year.

That’s what their money buys. Money cannot buy a championship every year, but it can keep you in the running for it.

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -Nevermoor

by Leopold Bloom on Nov 6, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions  

To paraphrase George Costanza...

…“Is that wrong?”.

In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.

by UncleLeo on Nov 6, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Well... when they fail to make it to the World Series

it absolutely destroys their ratings. Why? Because they’re the only team that exists to too many people because MLB doesn’t spend enough time pimping up the rest of the league.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 6, 2009 6:52 PM PST up reply actions  

S'what I'm sayin'

I mean, the majority of 2000 for the Yankees just makes me want to go all Nelson Muntz on them for all the money they’ve blown, but it’s not like they haven’t been on the cusp of winning it all for most of the decade. They’ve been in the playoffs, routinely. That’s what the money buys, continued better chances at a title.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 6, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions  

and meanwhile (back at the ranch)

Teams with less revenue / payroll are at a terrible disadvantage. Take the Royals for instance. If they don’t lock Alex Gordon up into a long term contract a team like the Yankees is able to, in effect, buy them. If the Royals do pony up for a guy like Gordon and he’s a bust (not saying it’s definitive, but he hasn’t lived up to expectations)… that stings. A team like the Yankees would shrug it off because it’s a small portion of their payroll. Meanwhile KC has to regain lost ground on an even more limited budget. It’s a very subtle game of economic chicken, even if the Yankees aren’t direct players.

by Jernskogen on Nov 7, 2009 4:10 AM PST up reply actions  

That's an excellent point

The Yankees make so much money it’s no big deal for them to absorb the hit of a bad contract for someone who doesn’t pan out, while like you said teams with smaller budgets and payrolls can really be hurt by it if they spend a lot of money on someone who ends up stinking.

With the Yankees it’s “Oh well, who’s next?” With many other teams it’s “Great, now what?”

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 7, 2009 7:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Actually

It went down by 7 million or so from last season to this season. Also went down 14 million 2005 to 2006 and by 5 million 2006 to 2007. So besides those 3 years, you’re right.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=9

by ChuckBudd on Nov 7, 2009 6:26 AM PST up reply actions  

Here's where I look at it a little differently

In each year the Yankees payroll was higher than the next team’s by…

2009: $52 million (Mets), which is more than the total payrolls of three teams
2008: $71 million (Mets), more than ELEVEN teams
2007: $46.5 million (Red Sox), more than four teams
2006: $74.5 million (Red Sox), more than SIXTEEN teams
2005: $85 million (Red Sox), more than TWENTY teams
2004: $57 million (Red Sox), more than FOURTEEN teams
2003: $35.5 million (Mets), more than one team
2002: $17.5 million (Red Sox), more than no teams
2001: $2.5 million (Red Sox), more than no teams
2000: $2.5 million (Dodgers), more than no teams and the last time a team’s payroll didn’t hit $100 million

1998 was the last year the Yankees did not have the highest payroll in the league. That year they were #2 to the Orioles by about $7 million.

We can see in 2002 and 2003 they started separating themselves from other teams and beginning in 2004 is when they really opened the gap and had a three-year run where they were far, far outspending everyone else.

At the same time there were a handful of usual teams with minuscule payrolls, so similar gaps would exist between teams in the middle of the pack in payroll and them, but at least many of those teams in the middle were pretty close to each other.

In 2005 Tampa Bay had the lowest payroll, clocking in at just under $30 million. The Yankees were a little over $208 million while the Red Sox were second with $123 million. The Mets were third at $101 million but the gap between them and the tenth-place Braves ($86.5 million) is only $14.5 million. The difference between the Braves and the fifteenth-place Tigers ($69 million) is $17.5 million and from the Tigers to the 22nd-place A’s ($55.5 million) is $13.5 million. That’s not too bad of a difference after you factor out the top and bottom teams. There’s a $64 million gap between the third-place Mets and 29th-place Royals but also a lot more teams between them too.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 7, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

This also nicely illustrates the argument of "baseball royalty"

The second-place payroll team has been either the Mets or Red Sox in that list above. But, if you expanded the list to top 4 teams:

2009:
New York Yankees $201,449,189
New York Mets $149,373,987
Chicago Cubs $134,809,000
Boston Red Sox $121,745,999

2008:
N.Y. Yankees $209,081,579
Detroit 138,685,197
New York Mets 138,293,378
Boston 133,440,037

it goes on like this, but you can see the trend. This cannot continue, whether the Mets and Boston lose or not.

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

by cuppingmaster on Nov 7, 2009 9:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, and Detroit's time in the top five in payroll was brief because they had a few big contracts they didn't replace.

Other than that, it’s normally the same teams spending the most with the Yankees far outspending even them.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Nov 7, 2009 9:34 AM PST up reply actions  

that's not really a complete argument

In 2001, there was a 7th game that was won by the opposition (another team that bought its championship that year, ironically) in the 9th inning on a scratch hit. It would be hard to say anything but the Yankees had some bad luck that year.

In 2003, another bought Marlins team surprised a Yankees team that I recall played mediocre in the WS. What’s more, Beckett stepped up and won both of his two starts convincingly. Again, hard to say anything else but the Yankees had a freak failure.

In 2004, the Red Sox defied all odds and came back from 3-0. Just gotta tip your hat to the Sox on that one.

In the other years besides 2008, they made the at least made the playoffs.

I’m not trying to be their apologists, but it’s clear that their failure had more to do with luck than some fatal flaw in their team’s construction

"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey

by cuppingmaster on Nov 7, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions  

I heard that the average per seat price

for the sixth game of the 2009 World Series was $1000. That was the average.

I’ve heard that many New York fans fly to Florida and see the Yankees there. Much cheaper even with air fare, and better seats (in a so-described crappy facility).

The distortion between New York and the rest of the country is simply not going away. Unlike the NFL or the NBA, Major League Baseball has over a century of existence that affects a lot of what the Yankees can do, cannot be stopped from doing.

Interesting comments by all. thanks.

"It is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics. " GB Shaw

by One won lost won on Nov 7, 2009 4:48 PM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Aperture_logo_small
Community Prospect List #4
Img_2672_small
Long-Term Outlook

Recent FanPosts

Fubarcloud_small
Wolf being told to spend money
Small
The wRC+ Challenge
Pumpkin_small
Maybe this is a stupid stats question
Small
A's reportedly sign Cespedes
Unknown_small
Is It Really Worth It: Three Veterans Who May Be Playing Oakland Next Year, But Shouldn't Be
Small
Manny's Contract
Small
fantasy baseball league for A's fans!
Small
NYY Proposal
Small
Roy Oswalt = opportunity

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Josefav2_small danmerqury

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late