Yankees talking to YET ANOTHER all-star player.

[Corporate Thug]

havent they learned you cant buy a championship?

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: tagej
Baseball is broken. When one team can afford to pay $189 million in payroll per year while others make do with a $40 or $50 million payroll, there's obviously going to be a great disparity in talent across the league. I can't blame the Yankees for doing what they do (just spend more money and get the best players), but the bottom line is that the sport as it is now is broken and I for one have lost all interest.

Perhaps at some point the league will realize that (like the NFL and NBA), they can make the league much stronger by creating a level playing field and forcing all teams to field competitive teams.

That said, the Yankees would be stupid to get Shef, I think he's just trouble in the locker room and will not help them win it all.

Teams like Brewers, Expos would never be successful, simply because their owners are not interested in being successful. Unlike NFL a lot of owners see their baseball teams as a source of income, and could care less how well they do. Until this changes, there will be no parity in baseball.

It's more than just that. If they even became successful for three seasons, they would never be able to retain their own players. Even if they put in a $100 million payroll for 5 straight years - at incredible loss for the owner - do you really think that would significantly increase their base market for their team enough to even sustain a big budget? The only reason teams like the Yankees, Mets, etc. have large payrolls is b/c of they make tons off of their local media contracts. I don't think a small market team will be able to magically turn their city/area into a large market area.

Yes, you're correct. However, I'm not asking them to go in the red, but at least try to spend most of the money you make on baseball. I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure the afore mentioned Brewers receive around 20-30 million dolloars in revenue sharing and luxury tax. Add ticket sales and media contract, however small it is, and I'm almost 100% sure they'll have way more than 30 million dollars to spend on the team.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: TheAudit

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: tagej
Baseball is broken. When one team can afford to pay $189 million in payroll per year while others make do with a $40 or $50 million payroll, there's obviously going to be a great disparity in talent across the league. I can't blame the Yankees for doing what they do (just spend more money and get the best players), but the bottom line is that the sport as it is now is broken and I for one have lost all interest.

Perhaps at some point the league will realize that (like the NFL and NBA), they can make the league much stronger by creating a level playing field and forcing all teams to field competitive teams.

That said, the Yankees would be stupid to get Shef, I think he's just trouble in the locker room and will not help them win it all.

The problem with making a level playing field is determining the cutoff. Some teams would be able to make the cutoff while others could not make the payment level depending on what payment cutoff is set.

Not to mention some of the best teams have the smallest payrolls (A's, Marlins jump to mind). The salary cap idea is a good one but the hypothesis that teams with more $$ will always do better is just wrong.

True.
The last two World Series winners had low payrolls.
But money does make it easier to compete. It's easier to plug guys in with a flexible payroll.
BUT
a lot of teams spend money and have nothing to show for it. The NY Mets started the season with the 2nd highest payroll in baseball and for the second straight season finished in last place. They couldn't have done worse if they tried, they have no farm system and next year is going to be just as barren.

Spending money is always good but how you spend, on whom you spend it, making the right decisions is more important.

Money isn't going to guarantee success and if you completely fall flat on your face and fail miserably like the Mets, then of course you'll do horrible. And the Mets have a decent farm system - probably ranked around 10-15.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: tagej
Baseball is broken. When one team can afford to pay $189 million in payroll per year while others make do with a $40 or $50 million payroll, there's obviously going to be a great disparity in talent across the league. I can't blame the Yankees for doing what they do (just spend more money and get the best players), but the bottom line is that the sport as it is now is broken and I for one have lost all interest.

Perhaps at some point the league will realize that (like the NFL and NBA), they can make the league much stronger by creating a level playing field and forcing all teams to field competitive teams.

That said, the Yankees would be stupid to get Shef, I think he's just trouble in the locker room and will not help them win it all.

Teams like Brewers, Expos would never be successful, simply because their owners are not interested in being successful. Unlike NFL a lot of owners see their baseball teams as a source of income, and could care less how well they do. Until this changes, there will be no parity in baseball.

It's more than just that. If they even became successful for three seasons, they would never be able to retain their own players. Even if they put in a $100 million payroll for 5 straight years - at incredible loss for the owner - do you really think that would significantly increase their base market for their team enough to even sustain a big budget? The only reason teams like the Yankees, Mets, etc. have large payrolls is b/c of they make tons off of their local media contracts. I don't think a small market team will be able to magically turn their city/area into a large market area.

Yes, you're correct. However, I'm not asking them to go in the red, but at least try to spend most of the money you make on baseball. I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure the afore mentioned Brewers receive around 20-30 million dolloars in revenue sharing and luxury tax. Add ticket sales and media contract, however small it is, and I'm almost 100% sure they'll have way more than 30 million dollars to spend on the team.

There is a lot more to spend on a team than only the team's MLB player payroll.

Do you have a source that says the Brewers will receive around 20-30 million in revenue sharing & luxury tax? Not that I'm doubting you, but that's a pretty broad range and would be very interesting to read.

 

[Argo]

Btw, for all of you comparing baseball to NFL's parity - keep in mind that NFL parity is artificially enforced:

1) Team with the best record the previous year gets the toughest schedule next year
2) 1 game elimination playoffs gives the weaker team a chance to beat the favorite (ex. Pats in 2001)
3) Reverse draft order helps a lot, considering NFL draft is a lot closer to a sure thing, as opposed to baseball.
4) 16 game season magnifies any mistakes 10 fold.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Here's a link from ESPN with projected (article is a year old) revenue sharing for 2003..I haven't found the definitive numbers yet:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0906/1428242.html

The Brewers were projected to get less than $10 million. I read from another source that in 2002 their TV contract was under $5 million.
The biggest gain from the revenue sharing was the Expos - who have no local tv contract.

This doesn't include luxury tax payments, but I do not believe that it was large enough to have a significant impact for all of these small market teams.