The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

After watching New York spend $424 million on three players, Brewers ownership is saying "enough is enough."  If owners band together and stand pat, they might be able to force something through.

Article is here.  Read, vote.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=aew0QKinAX2c&refer=home (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=aew0QKinAX2c&refer=home)

This will never fly.  First of all, it's coming from the commish's former team.  Second, the players union will never agree to it. 

Nah...why in the world would baseball ever want to be a fair game?

If you look at Baltimore or Toronto.  Why should they spend any money on free agents this offseason.  There is no way that they will win the division, and spending money on a good free agent would be just like burning money.

I am for one with a hard floor on spending. However, we all know that will never happen due to certain scumbag owners who like to pocket their profits, as opposed to the Steinbrenners who reinvest them towards the team. Gotta give those evil, childish bastards their due.

Like someone else here said, the player's union would never agree to something like that.

For it to work, it would have to be like football.  Both a max and a min and enough profit sharing that all teams could afford it.

I like the football rules.  Even though if football was like baseball my team and Dallas would have every decent FA.   

Why should the smaller teams waste money when they have no chance of winning the division.  If Toronto spends 20 million more this offseason, do you think they will have any chance of competing with the Yankees or Red Sox, no they won't.  It will just be $20 million they wasted.

Tell that to the Rays, Twins and Marlins. When talking about money, people point to the Jays and say they have no chance against the Yanks and Red Sox. Guess what? They have little chance against the cheap ass Devil Rays as well and that has nothing to do with money. The Rays are just better right now.

The Jays have the bad fortune of just being in a division with 2 perennial contenders and now the Rays. Toronto could afford to spend more if they didn't just flush $126 Million down the toilet on Vernon Wells. At the time, that was the 6th largest contract in history. Vernon is a nice player, but he is not a superstar and he got paid like one and now Toronto is screwed for a long time. Hey, anyone want a 30 year old CF who can barely get on base with declining defensive value under contract for another $90 Million the next 5 years? Really, no one?

The Jays are screwed this year due to injuries and bad contracts. These fuckers thought David Eckstein was a good ballplayer. No amount of money can make you win if you think Eckstein is a good player. They also are giving over $10 Million to Scott Rolen so he can be injured and suck. On top of all of this, they had the 12th highest payroll in baseball, above the world champion Phillies and more than double that of the Rays.

No crying for the Blue Jays. They have money to absorb mistakes, but not enough to absorb three massive ones like BJ Ryan, Wells and Rolen.

Since there are so many medium and small market teams it makes it seem like they can compete because 1 out of say 25 of them will make a splash each year.  But there are 24 losing teams.  When the Yankees and Redsox make the playoffs 90% of the time.  Lets say that baseball is a car race and the yankees are a mclaren f1, and the bluejays are a toyota yaris.  Should the yaris owner spend $10k to try to improve his car, there is no way that he will win, and spending 10k is just going to waste it.  Maybe it helps him lower the margin of victory, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter.

The Jays had the best staff in baseball last year, but their offense sucked. With some smart moves like signing Giambi for a year or Adam Dunn for 3 seasons, they could've contended.

Yes, the Yankees greatly improved and the Red Sox didn't need to, but they aren't so far behind they have no chance. You can't just say "don't bother". They just have to be smarter in what they do.

So you think it is fair that the Jays have to be a lot smarter wrt free agency and get lucky, while the yankees and red sox just have to not get unlucky. 

No, there is a distinct advantage between those clubs. I just don't see it as a black and white issue. It's true that the Yankees spend a shitload more than any other team, but it's also true that the Steinbrenners aren't even in the top 10 of wealthiest owners in baseball. Their team is worth the most, but in terms of personal wealth, not even close. Yet, they put as much revenue back into the team as they can while guys like Pohlad and Glass just pocket those revenue checks and don't even bother.

On top of that, they pay so much in luxury tax and revenue sharing, that they pretty much earned the right to say "F You" to anyone they want. They pay the price for their unfair advantage. If the Brewers think it's wrong what the Yankees do, give Steinbrenner back his check.

I will be fine with a cap as long as a minimum level of spending is established so teams like the Marlins and Reds have to use those welfare checks on the team as opposed to buying themselves another ivory back scratcher.

Funny you mentioned that, Cito the jays new manager (well technically old, but this is his second stint with the team, last stint was with 2 World series championship) said he would like Giambi.

On dunn, well Mr. Jackass (JP Riccardi) said comments about Dunn, that didn't go to well with dunn, so there is no chance dunn with be a jay anytime soon.

I think the jays can contend, they don't neccesairly have to beat the yankees and Red Sox to make the playoffs (22% (36 Games) of games against the two, 78% (126 games) against the rest) i figure it will be a split 18-18 against the two so the jays would need to go 77-49, not impossible.

The pitching injuries and loss of Burnett really hurts this team for 2009, but you can do anything if you have the pitching. They just made some bad moves on the offensive side that are killing them. The Wells deal was a disaster and will continue to be one for a long time.

But, freak things happened. In one season the Yanks suffered major injuries from:

Wang
Posada
Joba
Matsui
Brian Bruney
Jonathan Albaladejo (who is KILLING it in the winter league)

On top of that, career bad seasons from Cano and Jeter that likely won't be repeated. So, things happen that you can't foresee. Maybe Beckett goes down for 4 months and Matsuzaka's ERA is over 6 while Ortiz hits 9 HR in 140 games. It would be foolish to count on those things, but these things happen from time to time. No sense giving up on the season, but they need to improve offensively otherwise they have virtually no chance.

This is the lamest thing I have ever read. It displays a complete ignorance to the simple matter of right vs wrong. In your world, it's ok for the Yankees to be wrong, because they pay extra for the privilege.

What a fukkin' joke...

The Yankees are penalized for their big spending, as were the Tigers. In the past, the Red Sox and Angels have been penalized too, albeit on a smaller scale. MLB makes the Yankees write a check and it's distributed amongst the "poorer" teams. One of them, being the Devil Rays.

Besides, unless they have something else in the works, their payroll in 2009 won't be that much higher than it was in 2008. On top of that, after 2009 they have Matsui and Damon coming off the books. So, they aren't entering some crazy payroll level never seen before, they just spend all of the money they had coming off the books on a stacked free agent class. Some of it was wisely spent (CC and Tex), some of it was poorly spent (AJ and Marte) and some they should hurry the hell up and spend before they have a question mark as the 5th starter (Pettitte).

I understand the frustration, but all of this is overhyped.

Edgecrusher, if you were a smaller market team, and had a choice of either spending 40 million dollars more, and not making a significant impact in the ability of your team to make the playoffs, or keeping 40 million dollars, what would you do?

I would keep it, but I don't believe in that logic. All things are not created equal in baseball, I just don't think certain teams have no chances whatsoever. I mean, the Twins have been playoff contenders for most of this decade due to smart drafting and trades. If their owner wasn't such a cheap bastard, I feel they could be a legit championship contender.

Plenty of lower payroll teams have been successful and competitive. It's not always easy, but they have a chance. The Nationals and Pirates suck because they are run like garbage, not because they don't spend enough. I mean really, if the Pirates had tons of cash, they would probably give Bobby Abreu $80 Million right now. They are run poorly so they fail.

If the Jays didn't give Vernon Wells that terrible deal, and instead signed some better talent, they would be up to 90 wins or so and contending in the toughest division in baseball.

The voting is about 14 -1 in favor of a cap.  I'm guessing the majority of the owners would agree too in some form. Ironically, in the long run the Yankees may have bought their way out of free agency ... if that makes sense.

If the owners attempt to implement a form of salary cap, the players will go on strike faster than Darrell Green can run the 40. 

Let them.  The players won't get paid on strike. 

But don't stop playing the games, bring guys up from the minor and let them play instead.

And structure the cap rules so there will be some exceptions to the cap for players already signed that don't strike.   That would mean that if a $140 million dollar player doesn't strike his team could afford to keep paying him if he doesn't strike but if he did strike they would not be able to forcing him to negotiate a lower pay check with that team or another. 

A cap will eliminate baseball for a year minimum, the players union will never allow it. Besides, with their revenue, that will just make the Yankees throw their money at draft picks, creating a ridiculous farm system. People would start griping about that too.

MLB with a salary cap would naturally have a rookie cap as well, making "throwing money at draft picks" as much of a concern as it is in the NFL.  It's funny, really...no matter how hard I try to define the term "level playing field," you keep trying to plant the grass on a Yankees angle.

Would they still have guaranteed contracts? Or take thier cues from the NFL there too.....

I think some teams would suffer for awhile in the short term..IE the Yankees,Cubs,maybe the Red Sox the higher spending teams....I feel like others would be like so what's the big deal we do this all the time.... :D

I Love the idea of a spending cap,and floor...

If the players strike because of a salary cap it could actually hurt the baseball player himself.  I'm guessing you wouldn't want to piss off a country full of people that can't afford to buy groceries let alone wouldn't ever understand why 10 million a year isn't good enough.  If the clubs continued to play with minor league players the major leaguers would lose all control as I bet a lot of good ole America would support the clubs.

I don't know if they would do it.....but here is how an owner(s) could easily get the upper hand in the PR battle....

"Dear Fan,

As you are aware many baseball players are on strike and we are continuing the season with players from our extensive farm team system.   While these players are on strike our payroll is significantly lowered. We are therefore pleased to announce that for the duration of the strike all ticket prices will be reduced by 20%. 

For season ticket holders that have already paid for their tickets, at the end of the season you will have a choice of receiving a refund or applying the money to next year. 

Unfortunately we can not issue refunds for single ticket purchases.

Sincerely,

The owner. 

Keep in mind that nothing can be done about this until 2011.  That's when the current CBA expires.

Rays win one year in how many & people want to use them as an example?  Little stretch there.

The thing about small market is they have to focus their money in one of two direction.  First towards the farm system & developing talent then second hope that talent jells for a nice two or three year run, then basically start over again.

Look at Oakland.  First they had to let Giambi walk, then Tejada & trade Hudson, Mulder before they had to let them walk.  Then Zito walked.   Oakland could not sign them. 

The bigger market teams do not have to do this.

When is the last time the Yanks, Sox had to let a player they developed walk because they could not afford to sign them?

The worse thing about baseball is a handful of teams set the price for everyone.   If the Yanks overpay for a player then that is a gauge for other players. 

Also, Arbitration is one of the worst things owner ever agreed on.

 

You are actually dead wrong on a couple things here. 

Let's start by saying this - I am a huge "grow your own" guy.  I want a spending limit, a spending floor and a "Larry Bird" rule that provides cap exceptions when you grow your own and you want to keep them.  But I also need to point a couple things out:


Every year for as long as I can remember there have been an equal mix of "small"  and "large" market teams that make the playoffs.  The Rays are spoken about more due to success of the team after years of failure.  Tampa is a much larger market than say Denver - who was in the World Series last year.  Every year it's about 50/50.  I would also like to point out that people might be a little shocked at market sizes.  Example - Boston is something like market 11 overall.  They aren't even top ten.



Giambi:  Oakland couldn't match the Yankees offer, but who could? This happens from time to time.  Texas trumped the world on A Rod.  They outbid Boston and the Yankees and then needed the Yankees to bail them out a couple years later.   

They (Oakland) actually had plenty of resources to keep Tejada (who went to Baltimore - a team that doesn't exactly burn up the market), Hudson actively strived to stray and said over and over that he would take a "home town discount" and the A's traded him anyway and they could have retained Mulder as well.  Zito went for the big bucks and, again, to a team that normally doesn't issue those types of contracts.

Oakland is a prime example of a team that pockets a huge level of profits versus putting those resources back into the team.  Oakland is a perfect example of a team that needs to be held accountable for a spending floor, as is teams like the Marlins and Royals.

This stance drives me a little more than nuts because it's just not true - they whole "we can't keep our own."  It's bullshit because they could have kept more than they lost, they CHOSE not to.

  Would love this if the NFL did the exception rule.

  The difference?  Usually its the same big market teams.  Boston, NY etc...  Sure there are some big market teams that have not been making it for whatever reason, but the Yanks made the playoffs something like 15 Yrs in a row?

No way a small market team makes it to 7.

Giambi:  As with many top ballplayers.  If the Yanks want him, then no team can match what they can offer. 

A:Rod: This was Texas trying to keep up with the Jones & found out they couldn't field a team & pay one player 25 million.  

  Giambi also said he would provide a home town discount?  Found that out to not be true.  He continued to come up with add-ons until Oakland had to say "No"   Maybe Hudson would have taken a home town discount.   How much is a hometown discount when a big market team is offering mega bucks?   I'm sure if the Yanks offered 100 million for 5 Yrs then Oakland would have at least had to come up with 90+ for that same 5 Yrs.  Still price is for the team

I'm sure Oakland could have kept one or them, but why pay mega bucks for one player or even two, when the rest of the players will not be able to keep you competitive?


Owners need to make money.  This is a business.  The difference here is revenue.  When teams like the Yanks have their own cable deal etc... that bring in far more money than other teams, then they have more to spend & still capable of turning over a nice little profit.  A 10% profit on their revenue is far greater than a 15% profit on a team like Oakland.

In '08 the Yanks were No. 1 on the payroll outspending the No. 2 ( Mets ) by 70 million & were still turning a profit.   Its about revenue, not spending.

  Don't believe its BS, because too many teams are doing it.  If it was just one or two teams like the Royals doing it, then I might would agree.  However, when you have small market team after small market team doing it, then I have to say their is some validity to it.

The fact is small market teams have to make tougher decisions about players & where to spend their money than larger market teams.  No way a team like Oakland could have ponied up the type cash the Yanks did with just 3 players & still expect to turn a profit. 

Don't the Yanks now have the top 4 or 5 players in salaries?