Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This will hurt MLB's pockets as far as advertising since the World Series will be in San Francisco (Number 6 media Market) and Dallas (Number 7 media market).
Last years World Series was a money maker Since New York is the number 1 media market and Philadelphia is number 4 media market.
This year's Series will also be a money maker, just not as much money.
And of course you could not have a viable 30 team operation with a goal of limiting the championship games to the big market teams only. If MLB's economic health depended on such a thing, then by now we would have had some sort of dispute which ended with the big market teams forming a league composed only of themselves, assuring a World Series played in the appropriate mega media venues.
Of course if they did that, it might not represent any sort of revenue enhancement because the remaining teams would form their own league and the small market clubs might lose interest in the outcomes of the snottier big market leagues and cease following their fortunes. The viewership gains extracted from having a big market only league, would be lost because of reductions in viewership in places outside of the big market venues.
And it might not matter because in circumstances of two rival leagues, big vs small, the players would be able to leverage the competition for stars into salaries which would make today's mega deals look like chump change, leading to the economic ruin of both leagues.
Having one league containing unequal market size clubs presents problems, including low viewership of a Series between non mega market teams. However, the possible solutions would seem to be worse...unless you have some proposal which has eluded the scope of my thinking on this matter.
This year's Series will also be a money maker, just not as much money.
And of course you could not have a viable 30 team operation with a goal of limiting the championship games to the big market teams only. If MLB's economic health depended on such a thing, then by now we would have had some sort of dispute which ended with the big market teams forming a league composed only of themselves, assuring a World Series played in the appropriate mega media venues.
Of course if they did that, it might not represent any sort of revenue enhancement because the remaining teams would form their own league and the small market clubs might lose interest in the outcomes of the snottier big market leagues and cease following their fortunes. The viewership gains extracted from having a big market only league, would be lost because of reductions in viewership in places outside of the big market venues.
And it might not matter because in circumstances of two rival leagues, big vs small, the players would be able to leverage the competition for stars into salaries which would make today's mega deals look like chump change, leading to the economic ruin of both leagues.
Having one league containing unequal market size clubs presents problems, including low viewership of a Series between non mega market teams. However, the possible solutions would seem to be worse...unless you have some proposal which has eluded the scope of my thinking on this matter.
They could always put a true cap and also a minimum spending limit too and that would surely level the playing field a bit, unfortunately small market teams like Pittsburgh and San Diego would NEVER want this because it would eliminate revenue sharing. Don't just blame the teams who have more money, there are other culprits.
They could always put a true cap and also a minimum spending limit too and that would surely level the playing field a bit, unfortunately small market teams like Pittsburgh and San Diego would NEVER want this because it would eliminate revenue sharing. Don't just blame the teams who have more money, there are other culprits.
Of course they wouldn't. It would hurt their long term ability to compete.
Forcing them to spend and extra $5, $10, $30 million a year on players that will help them win a few more games a season isn't nearly as efficient as allowing them to put that money into developing players.
Probably. And drug addict hippies and crossdressers singing the national anthem. Typical San Fransicko. As crushed as I am that the Phils didn't make it, I will be happy watching the Rangers spank the Giants.
Plus, I can find comfort in the fact that the Phils will contend again next year and win the NL East....the Giants, even though they have really good pitching, are a one-hit wonder that caught lightning in a bottle. Let's not forget that the Giants didn't hit great in this series...its just that the Phillies hitters completely choked...whether it be the naggin injuries or whatever, they just couldn't hit consistently. The Giants are not going to have long-term success with mediocre hitters like Huff, Ross, Burrell, Torres, etc. The Giants could easily be in 3rd place next year....the Padres aren't going away, and Colorado is probably the most talented team in the NL West.
Of course they wouldn't. It would hurt their long term ability to compete.
Forcing them to spend and extra $5, $10, $30 million a year on players that will help them win a few more games a season isn't nearly as efficient as allowing them to put that money into developing players.
I forgot that the large market teams, don't develop players. The difference is that the larger market teams get to keep their players later on while smaller market teams have to hope to get lucky and have good loyal guys like Mauer, who is in a well run organization.
I forgot that the large market teams, don't develop players. The difference is that the larger market teams get to keep their players later on while smaller market teams have to hope to get lucky and have good loyal guys like Mauer, who is in a well run organization.
So how would forcing the Padres and Giants to pay extra millions of dollars each year help them afford to keep their star players?
So how would forcing the Padres and Giants to pay extra millions of dollars each year help them afford to keep their star players?
For arguments sake lets say we put a minimum spending and maximum spending limit on all teams. Lets say $75 million as the minimum and $100 million as the maximum. This would force teams to coordinate like a fantasy team and try to balance the spending. (and no I don't play fantasy sports) This means you might have to let a superstar go so you could handle two position for above average guys. This would really test some GMs. The other thing it does, is not allowing teams to sit back and eat up revenue sharing dollars while they settle for last place with their poor performing teams. It is proven that winning means $$$. If the Pirates pulled a winning season or even a playoff appearance out of their a$$, maybe people would finally show up and buy their gear. $$$$$$$
[quote=go phillies;16392231]Probably. And drug addict hippies and crossdressers singing the national anthem. Typical San Fransicko. As crushed as I am that the Phils didn't make it, I will be happy watching the Rangers spank the Giants.
"Spanking" already went down on your yard when we took the NLCS......
For arguments sake lets say we put a minimum spending and maximum spending limit on all teams.
How would you reconcile such a thing with existing contracts? The Yankees would still have seven years of 27.5 million dollars in obligations to Arod, six more years of 22.5 million dollars in annual obligations to Teixiera, and eight more years of 23 million for Sabathia. That's 73 million a year for just those three players, leaving the club with 27 million to pay the other 22 guys, who could not average more than 1.2 million each.
If your program was put in place in time for the 2011 season, wouldn't that make things interesting with regard to the signings of Jeter and Rivera, both with expiring contracts in 2010.
Jeter started to show his age this past season and whatever the Yankees wind up paying him, it will be for his declining years. He has been making 18 million a year, so it would be an insult to the Yankee Captain to cut him to what would actually be a more reasonable pay level based on expected performance.
And Mariano, while showing not even the slightest signs of slowing down, has reached the age of 40 and at some point down the road, will cease being extraordinary. He has been making 15 million a year and has a srrong case for expecting a raise.
Under a 100 million dollar salary cap, the Yanks would probably have to jettison both of them...unless they agrreed to play for 1.2 million each. Wouldn't that be something? Jeter finishing his career as Cub or Rivera spending his final years as a Met?
Eight of the existing clubs were over your cap in 2010 and several of those teams would be in the same position as the Yankees...having long term obligations to a handful of players which would consume a huge percentage of their team salary if rolled back to your cap level.
Twelve of the teams in 2010 had team payrolls under your suggested 75 million line, including the NL Central champion Reds, the AL East champion Rays, the AL West Champion Rangers and the NL West runner up Padres. If they are able to win at their current spending levels, why would they be interested in agreeing to an obligatory boost in their payrolls, especially the Padres who squeaked by on 37.5 million?
So, exactly what would be the nuts and bolts of your plan which:
A) Addresses what to do about the clubs with existing long term obligations
B) Addresses how the Pirates are going to raise their payroll from 34.9 million to 75 million.
C) Gets the MLBPA to agree to any of this.
Last edited by Grandstander; 10-25-2010 at 06:39 PM..
Status:
"College baseball this weekend."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Suburban Dallas
52,683 posts, read 47,932,189 times
Reputation: 33840
Quote:
Originally Posted by go phillies
As crushed as I am that the Phils didn't make it, I will be happy watching the Rangers spank the Giants.
As an erstwhile Ranger fan, I'd be happy to see the Rangers spank anyone at this point.
This Texas-SF series should actually be a really good one. I'd have to give a slight edge to the Giants, even though home-field advantage hasn't meant much in recent years, as it can be overhyped. Nonetheless, Giants in 7.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
