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.
Until baseball has a salary cap, any victory by the Yankees is a hollow one. Just my .02.
When you have a population where baseball interest is more feverish, such as Boston or NY, you will have sustained years of excellence. There are really no down years.
You have got to be kidding. Look at the years from 1965-1976, 1982-1993. No down years?
In contrast, places like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, there is really no chance for these teams at the beginning of a season. Every once in a while, a team like the Marlins or Tampa will have a one year run, then will be knocked back down. Why? Because the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox can afford to pay free agents from these teams off of big seasons.
Oh, yeah, the Mets did real well this year.
For the most recent proof, look at that guy in Milwaukee, Sabathia (sp?).
A salary cap is needed to nullify the disproportionate fan interest that exists in the northeast corridor of the country to make the sport more interesting on a national basis, IMO.
Any salary cap requires a corresponding salary floor, and the owners of teams like the Marlins and the Rays will refuse to allow that -- because they will then be required to spend money on their teams rather than taking it out.
Say what you want about the Yankees -- at least the Steinbrenners put money into the team. Then turn around and look at the Twins -- their late owner, Carl Pohlad, is a multi-billionaire, but he wanted MLB to contract the team and pay him millions of dollars to do so. Now tell me -- how does that benefit their fans?
And the Yankees not only pay revenue sharing, but they pay the penalty for their high salaries -- which is paid out to other teams. So lowering the amount the team pays in salaries wouldn't benefit other teams at all -- it would result in less money being given to MLB -- less money for the other owners to use to line their pockets instead of putting into their teams.
Any salary cap requires a corresponding salary floor, and the owners of teams like the Marlins and the Rays will refuse to allow that -- because they will then be required to spend money on their teams rather than taking it out.
Say what you want about the Yankees -- at least the Steinbrenners put money into the team. Then turn around and look at the Twins -- their late owner, Carl Pohlad, is a multi-billionaire, but he wanted MLB to contract the team and pay him millions of dollars to do so. Now tell me -- how does that benefit their fans?
And the Yankees not only pay revenue sharing, but they pay the penalty for their high salaries -- which is paid out to other teams. So lowering the amount the team pays in salaries wouldn't benefit other teams at all -- it would result in less money being given to MLB -- less money for the other owners to use to line their pockets instead of putting into their teams.
I will say this about the down years the Yankees suffered: it is interesting they all occurred prior to 1994. 1994 remains a flash point year in baseball when it comes to determining fan loyalty, because that's when the World Series was cancelled, due to work stoppage. The media supresses this fact, very mysteriously, I might add, but if you consider the baseball interest prior and since 1994, the places where fan interest were sustained afterwards were in the most passionate markets: NY, Boston, Chicago and St. Louis. Because of that work stoppage, their were mass aleinations of fan bases that still haven't recovered as a result. You know who opined for the players in 1995? None other than justice Sotomayor! It was her decision that squashed a generation of baseball fans in places like Toronto, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc.
Whenever I bring this up to NY baseball fans, it hits a raw nerve with them. But the facts remain.
Its officially an east v west combat. The NY Yankees v LA Angels and the Philadelphia Phillies v LA Dodgers. Lets hope the World Series is fought between two Northeastern teams.
I will say this about the down years the Yankees suffered: it is interesting they all occurred prior to 1994. 1994 remains a flash point year in baseball when it comes to determining fan loyalty, because that's when the World Series was cancelled, due to work stoppage. The media supresses this fact, very mysteriously, I might add, but if you consider the baseball interest prior and since 1994, the places where fan interest were sustained afterwards were in the most passionate markets: NY, Boston, Chicago and St. Louis. Because of that work stoppage, their were mass aleinations of fan bases that still haven't recovered as a result. You know who opined for the players in 1995? None other than justice Sotomayor! It was her decision that squashed a generation of baseball fans in places like Toronto, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc.
Whenever I bring this up to NY baseball fans, it hits a raw nerve with them. But the facts remain.
Yes, the facts do remain -- that many of the franchises who refuse to put money into the team have lost fans. Do you honestly expect fans in Pittsburgh to remain interested when management trades or sells off the majority of their good players for what, prospects? Blame that on those franchises -- not on the teams who actually put money into their on-field product.
And the one who allowed salaries to zoom into the stratosphere isn't anyone named Steinbrenner -- but Tom Hicks of the Texas Rangers, who broke all salary records by signing A-Rod to a $252 million contract in 2002 -- all because he wanted to be able to say he had the highest-paid athlete in all sports on his payroll.
But it's easier to lay the blame at the door at the door of the Yankees, because they're such an easy target.
Yes, the facts do remain -- that many of the franchises who refuse to put money into the team have lost fans. Do you honestly expect fans in Pittsburgh to remain interested when management trades or sells off the majority of their good players for what, prospects? Blame that on those franchises -- not on the teams who actually put money into their on-field product.
But they aren't selling off players in many instances. What happens is players are lost to free agency by the big teams, because the teams that don't have a cable deal like "YES" don't have the financial resources to pay the salaries of someone like Sabathia.
Now, why does "YES" exist? Because there is sufficient passion in the NY metro area to support that network. In Pittsburgh, there isn't. But if the Steelers had their own cable network, there should would be such an interest. Why? Pittsburgh is a football town. New York is a baseball town. But there is a salary cap in the NFL.
But they aren't selling off players in many instances.
Go back and look at their trade deadline deals last year and this year. Look at their opening day roster and see just who remained on the last day of the season.
What happens is players are lost to free agency by the big teams,
The Twins are owner Carl Pohlad was a billionaire -- and he wanted to have his team contracted. He could have afforded to put his own money into the team -- but instead of doing that, he let Torii Hunter leave as a free agent, and traded Johan Santana for four prospects from the NY Mets.
because the teams that don't have a cable deal like "YES" don't have the financial resources to pay the salaries of someone like Sabathia.
So what you're saying is that the teams that manage their money well shouldn't benefit from it?Maybe the Steinbrenners should take the money they make from the team and buy yachts or mansions instead of signing good players?
Now, why does "YES" exist? Because there is sufficient passion in the NY metro area to support that network.
And this is wrong?
In Pittsburgh, there isn't. But if the Steelers had their own cable network, there should would be such an interest. Why? Pittsburgh is a football town. New York is a baseball town. But there is a salary cap in the NFL.
Apples and oranges. Salary caps have nothing to do with it. Pittsburgh was a football town before the salary cap existed. NYC has always been a baseball town.
Hockey has a salary cap -- going by your reasoning, it should be an incredibly popular sport simply because the cap exists. It's not.
Apples and oranges. Salary caps have nothing to do with it. Pittsburgh was a football town before the salary cap existed. NYC has always been a baseball town.
Hockey has a salary cap -- going by your reasoning, it should be an incredibly popular sport simply because the cap exists. It's not.
There is nothing wrong with NYC being a baseball town, or by the YES network existing. I am suggesting that baseball have a salary cap, because if it doesn't, I'd be willing to predict that within 20 years, you'll see a contraction of at least 4 teams. The Steelers sustained excellence before the salary cap era of 1993. They were dominant the entire 70s decade. Once again, they are a successful organization, but not because of fan loyalty. It's because they have a successful general manager that knows how to manage a hard cap, and draft players smartly, while retaining a cohesive coaching staff, in regards to continuity. They are winning on the merits, not by virtue of having superior financial resources.
The bottom line is, no matter how analyzed, the teams with the greatest financial resources (read: Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Cardinals, LA teams) will always be able to lure the better players via free agency, and, even more importantly, be better able to fund and pay for scouts on the minor league level, which ensures a re-tooling of talent, much like college football. There are parallels to be drawn, incidently, and curiously, between MLB and college football. SEC teams in college football are able to constantly re-tool and sign better prospects out of high school, much the way MLB has it's very small core of teams that is able to obtain higher priced talent, and the common thread is fan interest. The best college football teams can always be found where the passion is the greatest. Same with MLB. But MLB is a professional sport, and their owners should have the ability to regulate this through a salary cap. The players resist, however.
And the owners resist just as strongly because they know that if there were a salary cap, there would have to be a corresponding floor, and they'd be required to spend at least the amount of the revenue sharing money on payroll -- and as it stands, several teams receive more in revenue sharing funds than they lay out in payroll. And the owners taking advantage of that don't want that to change. They make a lot of noise about the haves and the have-nots -- but the have-nots get a significant chunk of change from the haves, and they don't want to kill that particular golden goose. Instituting a salary cap would be slow starvation for that particular goose.
And MLB as an entity doesn't want one, either. A salary cap would mean that the Steinbrennner tax would go away, because no team would be allowed to spend more than the cap allowed -- so the millions that teams like the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox pay to MLB when they go over the artificial limit imposed by MLB would no longer flow into MLB's coffers. Selig would have heart failure if the Yankees ever stayed under the limit.
As to your statement about the minors, teams that finish lower down in the standings get to pick higher in the draft, so they get their picks before more successful teams do, which results in the better draft picks going to them. And signing free agents also comes with a loss of one or more draft picks, depending on the type of free agent.
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.
