The official 2008 MLB thread

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Obviously the owner consenus/majority is for a cap, so I don't see what difference it makes what the Yankees "feel" about it.

If you don't understand that the top few teams control the league, there's no reason to continue this discussion. The league is not even close to a democracy, though I'm sure you'd like to imply that it is.

Originally Posted by molson

But it seems silly to me to artificially prop teams up so they can exist, and then insist that they be put on an equal financial playing field as the Yankees. I don't see who that benefits except for Royals fans. Like you said, there are very few truly "small market" teams out there.

I didn't say anything about handouts for small market teams. No one is asking for anything. If big market teams are forced to adhere to a $100M salary cap and have the unfortunate position of somehow pocketing extra money, is this a problem? The only people that will be upset are the big market teams because they have to face the possibility of not winning all the time.

I'd add that I wouldn't have an issue with the current system if it was set up much like a European soccer league in that teams could be promoted/demoted based on how well they played. There's a lot of disparity in revenue/payroll in those cases, but at least the teams have a chance to compete as they are generally placed with teams similar to their situation. In the U.S., we prefer leagues that have parity. The lone exception to that rule is MLB.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd add that I wouldn't have an issue with the current system if it was set up much like a European soccer league in that teams could be promoted/demoted based on how well they played. There's a lot of disparity in revenue/payroll in those cases, but at least the teams have a chance to compete as they are generally placed with teams similar to their situation. In the U.S., we prefer leagues that have parity. The lone exception to that rule is MLB.

I'd love the European system for MLB, that makes a lot of sense. Or even revenue-based realignment which created an easier avenue to the playoffs for smaller market teams.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If you don't understand that the top few teams control the league, there's no reason to continue this discussion. The league is not even close to a democracy, though I'm sure you'd like to imply that it is.

I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the assertion that any professional sports team owners don't want a salary cap. Maybe I'm naive, I've just never heard anyone contend that before.

So the whole cancelling the '94 World Series, the '01 labor issues, that was all a scam and the owners and players were on the same page all along? That seems like a lot of trouble for nothing.

Do you think the Phillies or Rangers are against a salary cap just because the Yankees don't want it? When they collectively submitted multiple proposals for a salary cap, they were essentially "rigged" to fail? I don't buy it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The only people that will be upset are the big market teams because they have to face the possibility of not winning all the time.

And the league because of declining TV (and other) revenues.
And the networks because of declining viewership.

In the U.S., we prefer leagues that have parity.

This is all starting to remind me of some of the March Madness discussions, and there is some similarity in the situations. An occasional KC or PIT playoff team is the equivalent of the College of Charleston, while the Yankees/Red Sox and the larger TV market teams are the upper tier conferences.

The involvement of those teams is an interesting novelty but I can't think of many things that MLB wants less than a couple of back-to-back PIT vs KC World Series, as that would create havoc for the next TV negotiations.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And the league because of declining TV (and other) revenues.
And the networks because of declining viewership.

Once again, another 'this will happen' scenario that the big markets would love to have you believe, but has little basis in fact. Sure, you'll have a spike up or down in the playoffs depending on the team, but a even playing field is going to bring bigger contracts overall. The only reason the national contracts aren't bigger right now is because of the current local TV setup that has to be revised before a salary cap can ever be considered.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This is all starting to remind me of some of the March Madness discussions, and there is some similarity in the situations. An occasional KC or PIT playoff team is the equivalent of the College of Charleston, while the Yankees/Red Sox and the larger TV market teams are the upper tier conferences.

Once again, the NCAA is set up much more like the European Soccer Leagues and has little relevance to MLB. Teams in the NCAA are in leagues with teams of similar competitiveness and can move to a new conference up or down depending on their current situation. That's not comparable in any way to the MLB setup.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

but a even playing field is going to bring bigger contracts overall.

All I can do there is LOL. Simply absurd.

I hate to break it to you, but the networks wouldn't mind if a quarter to half the teams in the league were folded tomorrow, because they're guaranteed ratings killers & would prefer not to run the risk of being stuck with them.

That's not comparable in any way to the MLB setup.

It's entirely comparable when it comes down to what the largest percentage of the viewing public wants to see. Here's a hint: it's not the Royals vs the Pirates (KC & PIT fans note, I'm just sticking with the most common examples, there's quite a few teams that could be plugged in here).

I'm kind of amazed really, as it seems there's still some people who believe that a major professional sports league actually gives a damn about competitive balance/competition or anything else except insofar as they affect the bottom line. These are for-profit businesses, not amateur competitions striving for absolute blind equality for all.

As for the issue of "fairness", I've yet to see a rule that tells any small market team they aren't allowed to spend the same as the Yankees or whomever. Whether it makes fiscal sense for them to do so is entirely their problem, not something that another team should be handcuffed by. Ultimately it comes down to whether some of the smaller markets are legitimate major league locations at this point. Maybe the simple answer is that they aren't.

[ISiddiqui]

It's entirely comparable when it comes down to what the largest percentage of the viewing public wants to see. Here's a hint: it's not the Royals vs the Pirates

Though in the 70s and 80s that didn't matter. As World Series that involved the Pirates or a Royals got very high ratings. Perhaps one of the reasons that things have fallen so much (in addition to baseball's relative popularity falling) is because of the boom in team inequality.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

All I can do there is LOL. Simply absurd.

I hate to break it to you, but the networks wouldn't mind if a quarter to half the teams in the league were folded tomorrow, because they're guaranteed ratings killers & would prefer not to run the risk of being stuck with them.

You have a right to your opinion, but it's archaic at best. Ratings are good because of the wide exposure. Cut down the teams to less markets and you'll be left with less revenue. That's the truth. Less markets = smaller contracts and less exposure.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ultimately it comes down to whether some of the smaller markets are legitimate major league locations at this point. Maybe the simple answer is that they aren't.

No, ultimately, it comes down to whether MLB wants to remain a national sport with wide exposure that makes a lot of money or a regionalized league that has a strong fan base in certain cities but isn't maximizing its income potential due to smaller regional contracts. There's a reason that NCAA football and basketball is the huge revenue draw that it is. Your suggestion would be to contract the NCAA and just keep the top 25 teams in each sport in order to get rid of the teams that 'are guaranteed ratings killers'. You could do that, but it certainly would not increase the broad appeal that creates the ratings bonanza that we currently have in the NCAA.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though in the 70s and 80s that didn't matter. As World Series that involved the Pirates or a Royals got very high ratings. Perhaps one of the reasons that things have fallen so much (in addition to baseball's relative popularity falling) is because of the boom in team inequality.

You're correct. Some of the biggest ratings in baseball occurred in the late 70s and early 80s when the Royals and Pirates were regularly in the playoffs. There wasn't any disparity in payroll back then.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're correct. Some of the biggest ratings in baseball occurred in the late 70s and early 80s when the Royals and Pirates were regularly in the playoffs. There wasn't any disparity in payroll back then.

TV ratings yes, but that's a silly argument, TV ratings for everything were higher back then.

Look at attendence (adjusted for expansion), and inflation-adjusted revenue. Baseball's doing better than it ever has.

The only time baseball ever really had parity was the 70s-80s, which was about the time football surpassed it as the most popular sport in the United States.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Look at attendence (adjusted for expansion), and inflation-adjusted revenue. Large market teams are doing better than they ever have.

Fixed.

Originally Posted by molson

The only time baseball ever really had parity was the 70s-80s, which was about the time football surpassed it as the most popular sport in the United States.

You make my point. KC was able to compete just fine when there was parity. And football surpassed baseball in popularity when they reached a parity point in their league.

[molson]

MLB TOTAL ATTENDANCE

2007: 79 million
2006: 76 million
2005: 74 million
2004: 73 million
2003: 68 million
2002: 68 million
2001: 73 million
2000: 73 million

1984: 44 million
1985: 47 million
1986: 48 million
1987: 52 million

1973: 30 million
1974: 30 million
1975: 30 million
1976: 31 million
1977: 39 million

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Fixed.

You make my point. KC was able to compete just fine when there was parity. And football surpassed baseball in popularity when they reached a parity point in their league.

But the goal isn't for KC to compete. A very, very, small amount of people want that.

And you saying there was parity in the NFL in the 70s??

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

But the goal isn't for KC to compete.

And you saying there was parity in the NFL in the 70s??

That's fine. Baseball can contract to the 10-12 teams that compete and watch their ratings reach pro lacrosse levels. I'm obviously being oversarcastic, but anyone that believes that setup will increase the revenue and size of the TV contracts and revenue is an absolute fool.

The NFL parity began in the 80s.

[Mike1409]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How have the Rays been able to sign the best available talent? Surely their tradition of winning was not what brought them along.

They only have a 10 year history. Their philosophy has always been build the young players until they were ready for the majors, and overvalue your young prospects.

They tried the Marlins route of the "Hit Show" with Canseco, McGriff, and Castillo(Cashtealer).

Now they are locking up young players at a fair price but below market values at the end of their contracts. They should be a viable team for the next 5-10 years because they have their youngsters all signed to long deals and still have a solid farm system.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's fine. Baseball can contract to the 10-12 teams that compete and watch their ratings reach pro lacrosse levels. I'm obviously being oversarcastic, but anyone that believes that setup will increase the revenue and size of the TV contracts and revenue is an absolute fool.

The NFL parity began in the 80s.

Not 10-12, but maybe 4. (or let them move to NYC and Boston, which may also bring the Yankees and Sox down a notch). Or let them continue to exist as virtual farm teams.

The only teams that have shown a complete inability to compete in the last decade are the Royals and Pirates (and arguably the Rays, not withstanding this year). Every league has a handful of teams that are always bad. In the MLB, those bad teams will tend to be those with the lowest revenue and fan base. That's a good setup.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You have a right to your opinion, but it's archaic at best. Ratings are good because of the wide exposure.

Hey, what do I know, I just make my living in part based on this sort of stuff.

If you've got a strong showing in the largest media markets, your national numbers work out just fine. Nobody outside of Peoria really gives a damn about whether a program posts a big number in Peoria.

... due to smaller regional contracts.

Riiiiiight. A league without KC is suddenly going to be reduced to regional coverage on FSN since the rest of the country pales in comparison to the awesome impact of the Royals.

Let's see here. The top 8 TV markets account for 1/4th of all TV households in the U.S. Once we get to #26 in market rank we've accounted for over half.

Let's look again. Kansas City ... Market #31, accounts for 0.893% of all TV households in the U.S. How many people outside that market do you really believe would have their viewing habits affected by whether the Royals are in that market, or even exist?

Their assigned MLB territorial exclusives also include #69 Wichita (0.396%) and #104 Lincoln (0.246%). That's about 1.5% of the TV universe focused on them, or slightly more than the Orlando market by itself without any nearby markets included. Even if you assume that the interest drops to zero for half or even 2/3rds of those in Royals territory (and I'm focusing on that because surely you aren't suggesting any significant portion of the rest of the country gives enough of a damn about them to change their viewing habits because of their absence) then you're talking about a number small enough to be easily accounted for by other markets through replacement (if moved) or simply by avoiding the risk of them killing the ratings by getting deep into the post-season.

Orlando, Pittsburgh, Portland, Charlotte, Indy, Raleigh-Durham, Hartford, and Nashville are all larger. Only Cincinnati & Milwaukee are smaller in the current MLB. And in the case of Cincy, their tangent market appeal is more significant while Milwaukee appears to be in a situation more similar to KC.

Your suggestion would be to contract the NCAA and just keep the top 25 teams in each sport in order to get rid of the teams that 'are guaranteed ratings killers'. You could do that, but it certainly would not increase the broad appeal that creates the ratings bonanza that we currently have in the NCAA.

I've long advocated cutting the number of D1 teams for football and wouldn't mind seeing the same for basketball (albeit for reasons beyond TV). But the vast difference in the size of their post-season participation leaves more room for the less appealing markets to be more easily tolerated.

Like most major league sports today, baseball is a made-for-TV event first and foremost.

Some of the biggest ratings in baseball occurred in the late 70s and early 80s when the Royals and Pirates were regularly in the playoffs.

And as I said before, that was then and this is now. We didn't have multiple games per week coast to coast, with baseball there for the watching virtually 24/7. Those games had more value, via more interest, then than they have now as they were a more limited commodity.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Riiiiiight. A league without KC is suddenly going to be reduced to regional coverage on FSN since the rest of the country pales in comparison to the awesome impact of the Royals.

Baseball is currently under local/regional contracts that are not shared between teams. I assumed you knew this but perhaps you did not.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Not 10-12, but maybe 4. (or let them move to NYC and Boston, which may also bring the Yankees and Sox down a notch). Or let them continue to exist as virtual farm teams.

The only teams that have shown a complete inability to compete in the last decade are the Royals and Pirates (and arguably the Rays, not withstanding this year). Every league has a handful of teams that are always bad. In the MLB, those bad teams will tend to be those with the lowest revenue and fan base. That's a good setup.

Fair enough. I can see that we're not going to agree in any manner, so I'll move on to other things at this point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Baseball is currently under local/regional contracts that are not shared between teams. I assumed you knew this but perhaps you did not.

Of course local/regional contracts certainly exist (and are substantial in some cases), but you seemed to be suggesting that their national contracts (Fox, ESPN) would vanish if a couple of the smaller markets were to be contracted.
I can assure you the the impact on those would be negligible at most, and quite likely nonexistent.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Of course local/regional contracts certainly exist (and are substantial in some cases), but you seemed to be suggesting that their national contracts (Fox, ESPN) would vanish if a couple of the smaller markets were to be contracted.
I can assure you the the impact on those would be negligible at most, and quite likely nonexistent.

I couldn't disagree more with your last comment, but much as with Molson, we'll agree to disagree. Enjoyed the chat.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If big market teams are forced to adhere to a $100M salary cap and have the unfortunate position of somehow pocketing extra money, is this a problem? The only people that will be upset are the big market teams because they have to face the possibility of not winning all the time.

www.mlbplayers.com

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

TV ratings yes, but that's a silly argument, TV ratings for everything were higher back then.

The argument wasn't that more people were interested in the 70s and 80s or whatnot, but that ratings didn't fall off the cliff when teams like the Royals or Pirates made the World Series.

Now maybe that's because Jon says there is more baseball now so it isn't the big deal that you get to watch these teams in the WS, but I do think that there is something to the fact that payroll disparities exploding have had an impact. Whereas you may have all sorts of big stars in a city like KC then, you won't really find that now, which would tend to have an impact on interest.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Whereas you may have all sorts of big stars in a city like KC then, you won't really find that now, which would tend to have an impact on interest.

It definitely has an impact on baseball interest in KC. But that's nothing new, bad teams rarely have superstars. The 1990 Yankees lost 95 games and had zero superstars (except perhaps a washed up Mattingly and Righetti)

The only difference today is that the worst teams and seasons are generally limited to low-revenue teams. So the teams with the fewest superstars are the teams with the smallest fanbases. I don't think that's a bad thing for MLB as a whole. Lower interest in KC + increased interest in NYC = a net gain for MLB (to a point).

Sure, you need the novelty of the occasional big-market disaster or small-market success story, and I think revenue sharing does allow that.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

The only difference today is that the worst teams and seasons are generally limited to low-revenue teams. So the teams with the fewest superstars are the teams with the smallest fanbases. I don't think that's a bad thing for MLB as a whole. Lower interest in KC + increased interest in NYC = a net gain for MLB (to a point).

On the other hand, I believe it isn't a net gain in the long run to the sport. As smaller and middle market teams fall farther and farther behind the pack, you'll have franchises whose lower interest can't be made up by the higher interest by the big market franchises.

I think baseball has to be careful. Too much concentration of talent and most fans will tune out. So, I think revenue sharing has done wonders to keep interest in baseball high, but I think it needs to increase (I like Bob Costas's plan to take half of every teams' revenue, put it in a pool and then distribute that pool equally).

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

On the other hand, I believe it isn't a net gain in the long run to the sport. As smaller and middle market teams fall farther and farther behind the pack, you'll have franchises whose lower interest can't be made up by the higher interest by the big market franchises.

I think baseball has to be careful. Too much concentration of talent and most fans will tune out. So, I think revenue sharing has done wonders to keep interest in baseball high, but I think it needs to increase (I like Bob Costas's plan to take half of every teams' revenue, put it in a pool and then distribute that pool equally).

Fans as a whole would burn out on the same playoff teams every year, but I don't think we see that. There's only a handful of teams who haven't been in the playoffs the last 10 years or so. And exactly half of MLB teams have been in the playoffs in the last two years, and 20 have been in the playoffs in the last 5 years.

I wonder if there was sentiment about competitive balance being an issue back in the 50s and 60s, when the Yankees won 15 AL Championships in 18 years (it was about $$ then too, and the Yankees' massive scouting network). I certainly wouldn't want to see that today, but people remember that era fondly, don't they?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Fans as a whole would burn out on the same playoff teams every year, but I don't think we see that. There's only a handful of teams who haven't been in the playoffs the last 10 years or so. And exactly half of MLB teams have been in the playoffs in the last two years, and 20 have been in the playoffs in the last 5 years.

I wonder if there was sentiment about competitive balance being an issue back in the 50s and 60s, when the Yankees won 15 AL Championships in 18 years (it was about $$ then too, and the Yankees' massive scouting network). I certainly wouldn't want to see that today, but people remember that era fondly, don't they?

Old people do . Nostalgia and all, when they grew up on baseball. But, of course, today there is more competition for those eyeballs (as already somewhat mentioned). I can imagine plenty of Royals fans giving up on baseball and turning to the Chiefs and the NFL and raising their kids as Chiefs and football fans instead of baseball fans... as an example.

The problem with counting just playoff appearances is the issue with sustained winning. Fans won't follow a team that is good one year and sucks the next. If they've had one winning season and get to the playoffs, but are bad the rest of the years, they won't gain that fanbase that'll follow the team religiously... well, unless they are the Cubs .

And, of course, if you happen to be in the same division as the teams with the Top 2 payrolls in baseball by a longshot... well, let's just say it isn't exactly going to be easy to break that barrier and get that fanbase excited. Tampa is doing it so far (barring a late season collapse, I think they'll have a playoff spot), but that's been fairly rare in the AL East for the past decade or so.

Now granted, this seems to comes down to an anti-Yankee anti-Red Sox rant, but they are, by far, the main reason for the payroll disparity in baseball. It appears the NL fans have more to hope for, as only the Mets and Dodgers have over a $100 million payroll (edit: The Cubs may be there too now, but I'm not sure), and are unlikely to add significantly more at the trade deadline if they are floundering.

[Logan]

Wow, never seen this before...

Johnny Damon goes back to the wall and leaps to grab a Youkilis shot. He gets it, crashes into the wall, and falls down. When he hits the wall, the ball pops out of his glove and rests on top of the wall...and sits...before falling back into the field of play. Triple for Youkilis.

[MrBug708]

Let's see. Dodgers beating the Giants, Derek Lowe not pitching great, and Andruw Jones sucking. Seems like things are back to normal

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

The only difference today is that the worst teams and seasons are generally limited to low-revenue teams. So the teams with the fewest superstars are the teams with the smallest fanbases. I don't think that's a bad thing for MLB as a whole. Lower interest in KC + increased interest in NYC = a net gain for MLB (to a point).

Sure, you need the novelty of the occasional big-market disaster or small-market success story, and I think revenue sharing does allow that.

Wow, and now we get to the core of it. In the end, this is pretty much what is at the heart of the big market teams. We are in a big city so we have a right to be better and have many more built in advantages than smaller cities because it's what's best for the league. In the end, I have nothing to say to that, except just "wow". And you wonder why we just have such a passion about this and why it borders on hate, you arrogant snots.

(Whereas in basketball where that whole LeBron thing in Cleveland just doesn't work for the league. Or that Peyton Manning guy in Indy. Let's just throw those sad saps in Green Bay a good QB once every couple of generations so that they can be a feel good small market success story- I mean, hell, no one can even spell his name, poor soul. But really, we just want to toss them a bone between the New York, Chicago, and LA series winners)

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

What do the Royals fans want? Sympathy? For someone to give their team $100 million dollars to spend on players? For the players to leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the table and cap the Yankees spending at $90 million? How about a minimum payroll floor of $90 million, and any team who can't afford to pay that gets contracted.

It's not a facetious question - we hear a lot on this board about how hard it is for you, and 99% of people seem to agree. But what do you want to have happen?

You asked for it, so here it is


Draft Reform

The easiest and the one that is being held up by the owners much more than the players is the creation of a fair draft. The players union would sell out future players in a heartbeat- it has happened in every sport (tho the NFL is getting out of whack again). You think major league vets like having money taken out of their pockets to pay Rick Porcello? Hell, no. But larger teams realize this is where they can build in a competitive advantage. Again, how did Detroit raid Florida this last offseason? On a deal built around two prospects they overpaid for in the draft vs their slot. Smart move for Detroit but the loophole needs to be closed.

It's simple- draft picks are slotted, no major league contracts, and draft picks can be traded. Make it a legit and fair draft like any other sport.

But that's not all. You want to play in the majors or minors, you have to register for the draft. No Venezuelan academy 16yo signees. No $51M posting fees from Japan. You want in, you register for the draft. You don't like it, stay in Japan or the Dominican or Cuba. No short cuts, no loopholes.

Salary Stabilization

A $125M salary cap and $85M floor. There's very little chance of this happening as the player's union would throw a fit as would the large markets. You would still see some disparity but it wouldn't be nearly as pronounced. That's only a 50% difference between teams. Not the over 500% difference between top and bottom that we see today.

Saving that, give me a real luxury tax similar to what the NBA has. It's not ideal, but it's a start. MLB actually went backwards in the last collective bargaining agreement. You don't have a lot of teams going over it and it got worse. Not this super high limit that has only been broken a couple of times by teams not named the Yankees. You go over $120M, you pay dollar for dollar into the revenue sharing pot. You go over $150M, you pay $2 for every dollar you are over.

Again, as part of this, give me a salary floor to balance things out. If you're taking revenue sharing bucks, you have to be over $75M for MLB salary or something to that effect.

There is more but these two "simple" steps are one hell of a start.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Wow, and now we get to the core of it. In the end, this is pretty much what is at the heart of the big market teams. We are in a big city so we have a right to be better and have many more built in advantages than smaller cities because it's what's best for the league. In the end, I have nothing to say to that, except just "wow". And you wonder why we just have such a passion about this and why it borders on hate, you arrogant snots.

SI

All I've been talking is population, not the "deserving" bs that always get dragged into it. Why do you need to be insulting? I said nothing in my post that remotely justifies you "bordering on hate".

NYC is no better than KC. It just has more people....that's it. If you don't see why NYC is more important to the league than KC, all I have to say is "wow". Funny that I'm an "arrogoant snot" about the superiority of big cities as I've chosen to live in IDAHO.

What I see from you is a sense of entitlement that KC needs to get handouts just because they have a team that exists, and that they had George Brett like a million years ago.

The Royals exist and get free money only by the grace of the league. They can't compete on their own. And their fans still whine and namecall, and have pointless anger towards big market teams and their fans, who have done nothing to you. You actually hate the big market teams because they spend money they have, and you hate the fans because they continue to root for the teams they rooted for their whole lives, and they don't show you the proper sympathy, I guess (even though I've said again and again that I'm all for revenue sharing and wouldn't be against a salary cap, so I don't know why I'm getting your shit).

What you don't get is that competive balance only matters to the extent that it works for the league as a whole. Nobody cares about whether the Royals are good enough, nobody cares whether it's "fair". You need a league where you don't have too much predictability, sure. Eliminating the Royals or improving the plight of middle-market teams gets us there in a way that, unlike your suggestions, are actually possible.

Then I get into these discussions against my better judgment, see the (lack of) character of the typical small-market fan, and my sympathy goes away.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Salary Stabilization

A $125M salary cap and $85M floor.

....

There is more but these two "simple" steps are one hell of a start.

I don't get this at all. The Yankees are an obvious outlier, so remove them from the equation for a second. The Mets have a payroll of $138MM. Take Carlos Delgado off the team, replace him with a rookie making the league min, and they have a compliant payroll of $122MM and, in this fan's opinion, a better team. If Detroit got rid of Sheffield are they any worse off? Probably not, but now they are under your cap by about a million. A Sox fan would kill to have Julio Lugo off the team and now their payroll is about $123MM. Every other team is under your cap.

So what exactly is this accomplishing?

And re: the Yankees, they have something like $80-90 million coming off the books this year, mostly consisting of guys that won't be missed.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Logan

I don't get this at all. The Yankees are an obvious outlier, so remove them from the equation for a second. The Mets have a payroll of $138MM. Take Carlos Delgado off the team, replace him with a rookie making the league min, and they have a compliant payroll of $122MM and, in this fan's opinion, a better team. If Detroit got rid of Sheffield are they any worse off? Probably not, but now they are under your cap by about a million. A Sox fan would kill to have Julio Lugo off the team and now their payroll is about $123MM. Every other team is under your cap.

So what exactly is this accomplishing?

Well, the payroll floor means teams receiving revenue sharing funds would no longer be able to simply pocket that money.

And teams at the top of the payroll list would have to find a way to dump salary in order to retain their own free agents and raid other teams' talent.

Tweak the numbers for the salary cap and floor. There is a number for each that would promote parity and creative GM thinking and blunt the ridiculous advantage the biggest spenders currently enjoy, while also encouraging the little guys to spend.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Logan

I don't get this at all. The Yankees are an obvious outlier, so remove them from the equation for a second. The Mets have a payroll of $138MM. Take Carlos Delgado off the team, replace him with a rookie making the league min, and they have a compliant payroll of $122MM and, in this fan's opinion, a better team. If Detroit got rid of Sheffield are they any worse off? Probably not, but now they are under your cap by about a million. A Sox fan would kill to have Julio Lugo off the team and now their payroll is about $123MM. Every other team is under your cap.

So what exactly is this accomplishing?

And re: the Yankees, they have something like $80-90 million coming off the books this year, mostly consisting of guys that won't be missed.

It's easy to pick and choose Delgado, Sheffield, and Lugo- they're the dead weight. I'm sure the Royals would love to have that salary back from some of the bad moves they've made.

But what if the Mets were bumping up against the cap this offseason and couldn't have traded for Santana (and he would have, oh, stayed in Minnesota)? Or similarly, Detroit couldn't have traded for Cabrera because they couldn't afford an extention to him? Or some other team would have won the bidding for Daisuke because the Red Sox couldn't have even looked at him without shedding some payroll?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

All I've been talking is population, not the "deserving" bs that always get dragged into it. Why do you need to be insulting? I said nothing in my post that remotely justifies you "bordering on hate".

NYC is no better than KC. It just has more people....that's it. If you don't see why NYC is more important to the league than KC, all I have to say is "wow". Funny that I'm an "arrogoant snot" about the superiority of big cities as I've chosen to live in IDAHO.

What I see from you is a sense of entitlement that KC needs to get handouts just because they have a team that exists, and that they had George Brett like a million years ago.

The Royals exist and get free money only by the grace of the league. They can't compete on their own. And their fans still whine and namecall, and have pointless anger towards big market teams and their fans, who have done nothing to you. You actually hate the big market teams because they spend money they have, and you hate the fans because they continue to root for the teams they rooted for their whole lives, and they don't show you the proper sympathy, I guess (even though I've said again and again that I'm all for revenue sharing and wouldn't be against a salary cap, so I don't know why I'm getting your shit).

What you don't get is that competive balance only matters to the extent that it works for the league as a whole. Nobody cares about whether the Royals are good enough, nobody cares whether it's "fair". You need a league where you don't have too much predictability, sure. Eliminating the Royals or improving the plight of middle-market teams gets us there in a way that, unlike your suggestions, are actually possible.

Then I get into these discussions against my better judgment, see the (lack of) character of the typical small-market fan, and my sympathy goes away.

Well, I'm done with this part of the thread for now, too, as it seems that you are saying as well.

Kansas City is in the league and it's not by the grace of other teams that we deign to compete against the large market teams of the world.

You want to go ahead and keep watching a rigged league, I think WWF still has room on that bandwagon.

You think small markets should all just go away, we'll wipe out the 10 smallest market teams and the big boys can play in something that overnight falls in relevancy on the national stage somewhere between Major League Soccer and the Major League Lacrosse, the difference being that those sports are on their way up and not down.

The most tragic part to those of us on the other side of the argument is that you don't even get it.

SI

[Big Fo]

I would love to see the six to ten smallest teams eliminated in MLB (it'd be nice for the NBA as well), think of how the quality of play would improve if you got rid of the five worst guys on each team. Get the league down to 24 teams, with an equal number in each league (the current disparity is a pet peeve of mine, why should NL teams have a 6.25% chance of making the World Series while AL teams have a 7.14% chance? it's just dumb) and division.

Draft reforms, salary floors, increased revenue sharing, and a luxury tax set at a lower benchmark with a more punitive rate would also be nice.

[MizzouRah]

I think I'll pick up one of those Stars and Stripes Cardinals caps... I'm not sure if all teams wore those last year, but they really looked cool yesterday.

[Karlifornia]

Boy, Royals fans sure are bitter!

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It's easy to pick and choose Delgado, Sheffield, and Lugo- they're the dead weight. I'm sure the Royals would love to have that salary back from some of the bad moves they've made.

But what if the Mets were bumping up against the cap this offseason and couldn't have traded for Santana (and he would have, oh, stayed in Minnesota)? Or similarly, Detroit couldn't have traded for Cabrera because they couldn't afford an extention to him? Or some other team would have won the bidding for Daisuke because the Red Sox couldn't have even looked at him without shedding some payroll?

SI

Easy answer to your hypothetical...the Mets wouldn't have been bumping up against the cap because if they had a choice between acquiring the best pitcher in baseball, or re-signing Moises Alou and Luis Castillo (combined $14 million), which do you think they would have chosen? And let's not forget that Santana didn't stay in Minnesota because they have a BILLIONAIRE owner who refuses to spend money on the team after he used public funds to get his stadium.

You can be sure that if Detroit was worried about the cap, they still would have pulled the trigger on a Cabrera deal. But maybe their cost-cutting extends to not bringing in Jacque Jones at over $6 million.

So congratulations, your salary cap has added Moises Alou, Luis Castillo, and Jacque Jones to the FA pool. Have fun bidding, small market clubs! Do you really think teams will stop acquiring star players with a cap? If anything, your cap is teaching teams how to manage their club better -- spend money on premium players while filling the rest of the team with lower-cost vets or cheap young kids.

BTW, Mets owner Fred Wilpon would sign today for a $125MM cap, guaranfuckingteed. Your (or, sorry, was it MBBF's?) assertion that big-market clubs are what's holding up a cap because it makes it harder to win is comical.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Logan

Easy answer to your hypothetical...the Mets wouldn't have been bumping up against the cap because if they had a choice between acquiring the best pitcher in baseball, or re-signing Moises Alou and Luis Castillo (combined $14 million), which do you think they would have chosen? And let's not forget that Santana didn't stay in Minnesota because they have a BILLIONAIRE owner who refuses to spend money on the team after he used public funds to get his stadium.

You can be sure that if Detroit was worried about the cap, they still would have pulled the trigger on a Cabrera deal. But maybe their cost-cutting extends to not bringing in Jacque Jones at over $6 million.

So congratulations, your salary cap has added Moises Alou, Luis Castillo, and Jacque Jones to the FA pool. Have fun bidding, small market clubs! Do you really think teams will stop acquiring star players with a cap? If anything, your cap is teaching teams how to manage their club better -- spend money on premium players while filling the rest of the team with lower-cost vets or cheap young kids.

BTW, Mets owner Fred Wilpon would sign today for a $125MM cap, guaranfuckingteed. Your (or, sorry, was it MBBF's?) assertion that big-market clubs are what's holding up a cap because it makes it harder to win is comical.

Sorry, can't pick and choose what bloated contracts you want to get under the cap to make your argument. You know that doesn't work, and trying to argue it is playing abit false, IMO. Bad decisions will still be made with a sal cap (see: NBA), and the consequences will be that some deals that happened in real MLB life wouldn't happen in SI's hypothetical. I highly suspect Santana is at the least one of those that wouldn't happen. In fact Santana wouldn't even have wanted to leave MIN, since the Twins would have thrown money at Hunter to stay to meet the salary floor, or at the very least offered Santana gobs of money for the same.

Reality is, we can't really properly hypothesize what effect SI's system in whole would do unless we picked a start point for it's implementation and started forward from there. But, definitely, big market teams aren't allowed to just say "wouldn't sign Lugo" or "wouldn't sign Delgado" as if there weren't ever reasons for the deals they have or why they are on those teams making that money. Those reasons would likely still exist.

[Logan]

How so? Back when a Santana trade was first a possibility, both Alou and Castillo were not yet signed. Do you really think the Mets would have gotten themselves up against the cap by signing those two guys if they felt that would eliminate any chance of adding Santana?

You guys are making great points about the benefits of a salary floor though.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You think small markets should all just go away, we'll wipe out the 10 smallest market teams and the big boys can play in something that overnight falls in relevancy on the national stage somewhere between Major League Soccer and the Major League Lacrosse, the difference being that those sports are on their way up and not down.

You keep saying 10 - who's saying 10?? I said 4 (or 2), and most fans would agree with that. LOL that MLB becomes Lacrosse without the Royals, give me a break. A league with only big markets would suck, but a league without the bottom 2-4 teams would only be better. I agree with BigFo above, knocking out a handful of teams would be beneficial in any American professional sports league. The only place where it was actually considered was MLB, and it would have happened if not for stadium lease issue. THAT tells you the value of the small market means to the league.

I don't know where to start with the WWF rigged theory....is this back to the whole thing where the teams and players were ALL against the salary cap, and the two players strikes were actually some sort of scam to take the blame of economic disparity away from the top MLB owners?

Syracuse used to have an NBA team, but in today's landscape, that doesn't make any sense, and they're gone. The Royals are in the same boat. Or they could continue to exist. But this vilification of every entity and system that you perceive as "holding back" your Royals is getting really old. That's why I kind of hope they just go away, get put out of their misery.

If the Royals ever have another winning season, it will have been heavily subsidized by the Yankees and their fans, and it would be tainted in that way. Is that really what you want?

Royals players would be dead-against any kind of salary cap by the way, it's annoying how you keep blaming the lack of one on the Red Sox and Yankees, ignoring history, but whatever helps you get through this I guess.

Red Sox fans pay an average of $48 a ticket, and they could charge way more and still sell out every game (and if you actually want to go to a game, you'll be paying a scalper $300+ for regular seats.) The Royals average ticket price is $17. I realize that TV is the main revenue stream but the Sox bring in a ton of money in ticket sales. If they're forced to hand over more of their money to keep the Royals afloat, guess where they'll make up the difference.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The most tragic part to those of us on the other side of the argument is that you don't even get it.

SI

I get it perfectly. The Royals have been bad forever, hampered by their small payroll, and you want to alter the structure of MLB so they can be better. If you just said that, instead of resorting to name-calling, ridiculous blame, and bitterness, more people would be on your side.

[MrBug708]

It just seemed so recently when Red Sox fans were all for a salary cap

[molson]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

It just seemed so recently when Red Sox fans were all for a salary cap

Many still are. A lot of Yankees fans are too. It ain't gonna happen though.

[JS19]

I'll admit, I haven't read through this how small/big market debate, but who's really complaining here? I'm pretty sure baseball is more popular than ever and making the most money in its history. Why would anyone want to change anything? This is a business, and the point of a business is to make as much money as you possibly can, which they are. I'll admit, I'm a Mets fan (unfortunatley), so I'm part of this big market monster fan, but if the Marlins can win more WS than the Mets, and the same amount as the Red Sox, in the past 11 yrs, and the A's and Twins can be regular playoff teams, and the Rays can have the best record in baseball, than maybe these other teams need to hire people who actually know what they are doing to run their franchise.

[Logan]

Allow me to talk about actual baseball games for a minute...

That was another great one between the Mets and Phils (at least until the Mets really got to the Phils' pen late). The first eight innings were a joy to watch...just great baseball, some clutch hitting, a lot of strategic moves between the Manuels, etc. It amazes me how Jamie Moyer continues to be a productive pitcher.

[Mike1409]

The thing about the TV contracts that doesn't add up is that the team gets to keep their local TV money. That is where the biggest change needs to be made. The yankees have to have another team playing to broadcast the game so they should all split TV revenue just like attendance 60/40 for the home teams.

ALso FA signings allow the big spenders to add draft picks when they leave. The Rays and the Yankees have both had 15 top 50 picks since 2000, so the drafting system isn't as big a benefit as it seems.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Mike1409

The thing about the TV contracts that doesn't add up is that the team gets to keep their local TV money. That is where the biggest change needs to be made. The yankees have to have another team playing to broadcast the game so they should all split TV revenue just like attendance 60/40 for the home teams.

Out of the hundreds of millions that the YES network cost to start up, how much did the other teams chip in?