If Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols hits free agency after the 2011 season, most of the major market teams are expected to jump into the fray for his services. However, White Sox GM Kenny Williams says that his club won't be one of them, writes Chuck Garfien of CSNChicago.com.
“If [Jerry Reinsdorf] gave me $30MM dollars right now, I’m not going to spend it on one guy. Sorry White Sox fans,” the GM said. “But I tell you what, I’m going to take that $30 million and I’m going to distribute it around. My team is going to be better as a whole than it is with one player who might get hurt. Then you’re done. Sorry, that’s just me. And that’s no disrespect to a future Hall of Famer, first ballot, one of the greatest players in history.”
Even though the White Sox currently have a $125MM payroll, Williams says that he and Reinsdorf agree that there should be a salary cap in baseball in order to level out the field. The GM says that a contract that would give one player $30MM per season would be bad for baseball, to the point where he'd be okay with the game being "shut down" in order to correct the issue. After getting all of this off of his chest, Williams immediately tried to downplay his comments:
“Wait a minute, didn’t I say I wanted it quiet, I wanted peace? Let me shut the hell up already. I was hoping no one would ask me that this entire spring training.”
That is good the white sox would have been al central champs and maybe even world series champions
I think thats a ploy and the White Sox would be one of the first teams to throw money at Pujols. The owner loves Pujols.
saying that owners love pujols is like saying priests like the bible. I mean really? Its all about the $$$ any team would take him for a decent price.
Then why weren’t they?
I think having Adam Dunn trotting around in LF would probably negate most of the value Pujols would bring anyways.
It’s too bad that Adam Dunn is going to be the DH for the White Sox and not the LF’er….. Better luck next time.
And where would he play if they signed Pujols? Use your brain
If Kenny had any intention in signing Pujols, he never would have re-signed Konerko. That’s the knowledge my brain is supplying, sir. The possibility that Konerko, Dunn, and Pujols would be in the same lineup is so improbable that it isn’t even worth hypothetically speculating.
He wants to stay in St Louis so the Cardinals will likely be outbidding themselves until he gets the amount he’s looking for from them
outbidding? Going by last week, St Louis was and most likely still low ball Pujols
St Louis low balled him? Please, these guys play a childs game
St Louis low balled him? Please, these guys play a childs game. The fact that any player thinks they are worth 20 million a year is a slap in the face to ever person that posts on this site
Econ 101 …
It’s called supply and demand. Sure a teacher or a firefighter might do more good for society, but there’s a lot more qualified teachers then there are guys who are the greatest hitters of their generation. And that’s aside from the fact that a guy like Pujols would become an instant cottage industry in whatever city he ends up playing. Successful sports franchises create all sorts of jobs in the communities they reside in.
But more to the point, he’s worth what someone with the money to spend is willing to pay him. You can’t blame a player for taking the best offer available to him just like “every person that posts on this site” would.
I’m not blaming anyone. If a team is stupid enough to pay a guy $30 million a year, obviously he’s going to take it. I’m sure everyone would. I’m just making the point that these guys already get paid a rediculous amount of money per year.
What ever happened to players that meant it when they say “I want to finish my career with this team”. What they really mean is I want to finish my career here but only if they pay me TOP DOLLAR.
Free agency happened and guys have a choice now. Before that, changing teams meant that you got traded to a place that you had no control over, often because you weren’t as good as your reputation any more and your team wanted to move on.
Are you his agent? Were you there at the private negotiations?
Rumor has it the cardinals offered 350 mil and busch stadium, pujols wants 400 mil and stake in busch beer. So ive heard anyways from drew rosenhaus.
Are you his agent? Were you there at the private negotiations?
Rumor has it the cardinals offered 350 mil and busch stadium, pujols wants 400 mil and stake in busch beer. So ive heard anyways from drew rosenhaus.
Exactly like they did with Holliday
kenny williams is a smart man. there should be a salary cap in baseball, indeed!
No there shouldn’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
spoken like a real yankee fan.
Even as a fan of a smaller payroll team, I think a salary cap is a bad idea
why? just wondering what some arguments are for it
Where do you set it? 200 mil? 100 mil? oh by making the salary cap 100 mil that will cause the pirates to spend 100 mil. Hell no. The owners spend whatever they want based on their market, tampa doesnt get a lot of fans so they sustain a lower payroll its how it is in baseball. Also teams dont buy championships look at the mets/dodgers/cubs and the giants who had a payroll of 100 mil but 20 mil of that(zito) wasnt even on their ws roster.
So in conclusion the owners are going to spend what they want to spend, unless you make the salary cap 60 mil you wont see all the teams spend the same amount.
I like it the way it is, the offseason is entertaining as hell and by far the best offseason in sports and I dont think it would be that way with the cap, also I like seeing small market teams build up a group of young guys then add a few free agents and go with that and teams like the rockies/brewers locking up good young talent for awhile.
A cap doesn’t have to be one in which all teams struggle to be under it. It could simply be one that prevents one team from spending multiple times what other teams could afford to spend.
Please read my post, I feel like I addressed this.
Whats the difference if you set the cap at 150, when the rays can only sustain a 50 mil one? Oh dang now the red sox can only spend 3 times as much as the rays instead of 3.2 or whatever.
Well the difference comes as you adjust that number lower and closer to what an average or above market can feasibly afford. Cutting the Red Sox down to 150 million may not change the competitive balance for the Rays all that much, but these are only two teams with a very arbitrary cap number.
What might a 140 million cap do for teams like Baltimore and Toronto? We’ll it’d increase their chances of being competitive. If they’re competitive, perhaps they could afford to spend closer to that of the large market teams.
maybe I’m missing the point of having a salary cap in baseball, but I’m pretty sure the Rays won the AL East last year… with the lowest salaries in the AL East… so doesn’t that mean a salary cap wouldn’t even the playing field as much as some think it would?
Let’s see how the Rays do this year with half their players walking to the big names and their big name player signings who are 5 years removed from their prime. The only way for teams like the Rays to compete is to be patient with their farm system, then put their eggs in a basket for a couple years and hope they catch lightning in a bottle – which they did for three years. Now back to the rebuild…
Lets see how the yankees do this year with the highest payroll and no sp. I think the yankees would kill for the rays starters.
Just because a particular team is good at “playing the game” in the current system (Look at Tampa, Minnesota, Florida’s 2 WS, Oakland in the early 2000’s etc.), doesn’t mean the system isn’t flawed. There are a whole bunch of teams that are the rule, and not the exception to it.
That being said, a salary cap doesn’t necessarily fix these issues. Look at the NBA. Players have max salaries, teams have salary caps, but things like endorsements, taxable income, marketing, etc., still has players grouping together in large markets, allowing a select few to have the ability to win a championship.
The truth is that there is no correct answer, at least not a clear cut one.
Honestly, until the fans quit attending games, paying for over-priced beer, watching their teams on TV, and buying jerseys, the large-markets in any system will have a higher chance to compete…oh that reminds me, I need to buy my season tickets!
exactly.
Right, when only what 7 teams in baseball have a cap of over 140 and most teams have self imposed caps(like the white sox at 125).
If the blue jays and orioles need incentive to run a successful organization they need to get the hell out of baseball, the incentive should be to the fans. Furthermore the giants/rangers both had payrolls at around 100 mil right? Giants number is inflated because zito didnt even pitch for them in the ws so you can take out 20 mil. Poinnt is these lower market teams can compete just as much and teams can field a competitive team for around 100 mil, or hell even less as with the rays. You just have to do good scouting. Name 1 100 million dollar free agent pitcher that has panned out successfully, you cant. Point is the top spenders go out and get a few good years or just a complete bust out of free agents because they are older when they hit free agency.
If I ran an orginzation I would more or less ignore the big market free agents and just focus on my group and get some filler veterans and sign my players to extensions(reds/rockies)
It’s funny that you keep mentioning Zito’s payroll doesn’t count.
Many, many other teams wouldn’t be able to afford such an albatross contract and still field a competitive team. Score another point for the large market teams.
Many other teams? Alot of the teams with 100 mil could support it and win the ws. I actually think thats proof more for the mid market teams that ok you can screw up and sitll succeed.
OK – here’s how baseball executes a ‘fair’ salary cap. Revenues are tabbed the year before for MLB – expenses and profit margin are tabbed for each team. Each team is assigned a players salary number that’s based solely on MLB profit margin.
No player can sign for more than 2 years. Rookies can only sign for a max of 1M. Teams only have player control for 2 years. Minimum salary for players will be 500K.
No ticket will cost more than 500.
Each team will have it’s own TV network.
Players can earn extra money based on incentives which are standard across the board.
OK – I have to go – time to ride this bomb.
Dr.Strangelove
In my mind the reason you do it is then teams can’t go out and spend a ton of money on one guy, and when he fails just spend more. It’s more or less to even out the playing field with the Yankees. No other team in baseball, except maybe Boston can afford to make the mistake of signing a high priced player. Also not all the teams have the money from the YES network either like the Yankees do, they make more money a year on that than many teams spend a year.
Giants and Zito? Dodgers/mets/cubs/phillies all can as well, although the mets/cubs just hand out a lot of bad contracts.
So what you are saying is we should punish teams for signing players that dont pan out and make them pay twice as much for their mistake and make the fans suffer? Yea!
A cap is a top-limit; there doesn’t necessarily need to be a bottom limit to go with it.
The problem in baseball is that there are a couple teams simply running away from the pack. When the top teams have something like a $60MM/yr advantage over the OTHER high payroll teams, you know you have an issue. Everybody doesn’t need to spend exactly the same, but there comes a point where there is TOO much disparity.
Some of the owners on the bottom need to step it up. That’s for sure. But some of the owners on the top need to dial it back too. They need to compete on the field, not in the accounting books, and they need to have tough decisions and consequences just like every other team in baseball does.
A successful cap is one that most teams don’t need to worry about, and yet one that most teams also have a chance of attaining. A $200MM cap is worthless because even the teams it would affect, it affects only slightly. $100MM is low enough that it affects too many teams in baseball. In my opinion, if a cap affects more than 20% of teams it’s far too low. It’s not about punishing all teams in healthy markets for their success, it’s about capping the advantage we think that should confer them.
Where would I put the cap? I’d be comfortable around $130MM, and of course adjusting slightly for inflation in the same way that league minimum salaries do. $130MM would clip the wings on about 6 teams (based on projection payrolls from baseball reference), which is on my high end but it does get in. It should be noted that of those six, it would affect two by less than $5MM and one more by less than $10MM — in other words, this is a level even the Top 20% of big spenders tends only to hover around, which I think is exactly what a cap should be. It’s also a figure that is immediately obtainable (within $10MM) by two teams with another three or so hovering about $10MM behind that.
It’s also a big enough payroll to make mistakes but survive them–the 2010 Giants, for example, had Barry Zito basically warming the bench for $20MM in the playoffs and still won, and nobody in the world is going to suggest their franchise is horribly crippled by it. At the same time, more than one or two bad contracts DOES hurt quite a bit, as Cubs fans can tell you watching Soriano and Zambrano hurt the teams’ competitiveness for at least the past two years. (Okay, okay — Soriano wasn’t THAT bad last year but his salary was still a big reason they didn’t spend more to improve.)
If the top payroll teams want to complain that the $90 million dollar advantage they have over the bottom payroll teams isn’t fair to them, well, then can do that but it will fall on deaf ears, at least for me. What I definitely don’t think is competitive or good for the game is to have a $90MM difference between the bottom teams and the high payroll teams and then another $70MM difference between the high payroll teams and the “lulz” teams.
So, I feel as if I already answered your points.
So the red sox who are at what 170 will cut 40 mil and instead of spending 130 mill mor then the pirates will only spend 100 mill more? Yay?
Also the pirates wont spend more and the only thing you will accomplish successfully is to cut players salaries and keep the competitive balance the same.
It’s this simple:
Do larger market teams have a competitive advantage because of their finanical resources?
– Yes, of course they do. If spending big didn’t offer a huge advantage, NY wouldn’t spend 200 million a year.
Would placing a high cap help other teams?
– Yes, it would. Removing, or limiting, the competitive advantage the Yankees currently enjoy would give other teams a more reasonable shot.
You say that but please tell me where the pirates/rays/padres have said “oh well if it wasnt for the yankees we would spend way more and be up there at 100 mil”.
Again, is the competitive balance that would be gained from the red sox payroll being 130 mill more to 100 mill more really do anything else except for cut players salaries? I doubt it. Also mid market teams win the ws all the time. And you can say the yankees buy championships but look at their dynasty in the late 90s, mostly homegrown players! Same wiht the red sox this time around, home grown and a few key free agents.
Why are you against a salary cap? Does your team have a significant advantage that you don’t want to give up?
Again, please prove to me where the pirates and lower market teams said if it was 100 mil they would spend 100 mil and decrease the competitive imbalance. Please do. And I am a fan of the tigers, a few years ago we were one of the highest salaried teams in baseball but have now dropped a lot of payroll but can absorb some contracts.
The fans give their teams the advantage, how many rays fans would show up if htey charged yankees prices? yankees fans PAY for a 200 mill team rays fans umm dont.
Are you really this dense?
If the Yankees can’t spend 200 million anymore, they lose some of their competitive advantage.
If the Yankees lose some of their immense advantage, it will be easier for teams like the Orioles, Rays and Jay to compete with them.
I’ve never once said a cap would encourage teams to spend 100 million … I don’t know where you’re getting that or what that has to do with my point.
Again, why are you against a top cap of some sort? What is wrong with a more level playing field?
And again I will say, what is the difference between the red sox spending 100 million more then the pirates as opposed to 130 million more? THAT 30 MILLION HOLY POOP THE PIRATES COULD SIGN A TOP FREE AGENT THEN! Ya no, again it would only cut down player salaries and hurt teams when they try to sign young talent long term.
But ok, its that extra 30 millino that will make it a level playing field, you are absolutely right. lol really dude.
Well, for the Pirates, cutting the Redsox payroll by 30 million likely wouldn’t mean much. You’ll be surprised to learn that they play in a different division and an entirely different league. They’ll play each other a handful of times over the next 5 years, if that. So, I have no clue why you keep bring these two teams up …
However, if the Redsox only had 130 million to spend, instead of the 170 million they’ll spend this year, it would make a huge difference for the teams in their division like the Rays, Jays and Orioles. That difference in spending would mean no Carl Crawford and no Adrian Gonzalez.
And stop pretending teams couldn’t keep their own talent with a 130 million dollar cap … It’s just stupid.
Fine, red sox and rays. Really, can the orioles/blue jays afford a 130 mil cap? Oh no Carl crawford or adrian gonzalez? Really? How about they just wouldnt have picked up ortiz’s option and this year they are only paying 6.5 mil for agon. All it would have meant is cc would have signed for less money.
I didnt say they couldnt keep them, I said it would effect extensions because they would have to take it into account.
You are just crying because yoru team doesnt spend as much money so instead of paying higher ticket prices(like sox/yankees do) you want to cry foul and cut players salaries to try and “level” the compeition but I dont know if you realized this but teams with the highest salaries dont always win, home grown players etc wait I feel as if I said this before. Sorry, if your orioles were better with their farm system and spent their money better maybe they would be in the running like the rangers/giants and other teams with half the payroll of the yankees.
IF a team has the committed fan base to spend 200 mil let em.
The Orioles, Jays, Rays don’t spend 200 million because they can’t. There are media markets, a city of 8 million people, etc that other teams can’t create over night.
You still can’t debate that taking away some of the Yankees spending capacity wouldn’t help level the playing field in the division … because it would and you keep ducking the question….
I think you’d be on my side of the argument (although doing it poorly) if the Tigers were at the bottom of the spending and had NY and Boston in their division.
Yep, just as I thought you are just complaining because your team doesnt have the fan base to support it. Quit crying your division is tough get over it.
And actually I wouldnt, I would want the tigers to develop prospects better then they are beat them that way(as the rays have proven) and sign some guys to long extensions who perform
I am not ducking the question. Moving on. Ok that was a joke. But really, the blue jays have a payroll of 60 mil. Salary cap at 130 mil means the red sox will spend less, however the players will start want top dollar, so would hte blue jays really want to papy for crawford or stick with what they are doing and keep doing it with young players andsign people to extensions. The players will still demand high salaries because someone will eventually give them the contract. Oh now you are just happy “then the red sox wouldnt get him” The red sox would have offered craword the same as the angles and been able to sign him.
If a teams fans are willing to pay that much for tckets and show up more power to the team for utilizing that resource, but making a salary cap wont have that much of an effect on anything other then cutting player salaries.
So answer my question, whats the difference betweent eh red sox payroll being 100 mill more then the blue jays instead of 70 million more? Does it really make THAT big of a deal? That is drew/dice k/cameron fine take em.
Keep crying, I didnt cry foul when the twins farm system was and still is 1000 times better then ours I didnt say “WE NEED MORE OF A SCOUTING CAP ITS UNFAIR YOU SEE THAT TALENT” Each team uses the resources at their disposal, I am sorry your orioles just suck at both.
I’ll reply to this with a new comment at bottom on the page. On my computer, all of these conversations are difficult to read with this many replies …
Key difference for the Rangers and Giants … They don’t play 89 games against the AL east.
Paul, I agree with you that under the current business-revenue model, a flat limit on payrolls wouldn’t quite work for baseball. The reason why it works in other sports like the NFL is because of shared TV revenue. Ultimately, the Rays aren’t penalized by the number of fans they attract at their games as much as the city they happen to be located and the revenue their market brings in; even if they Rays sold out every game, they still wouldn’t be able to compete with the larger market teams. In addition, it’s also not fair that even when there is a nationally televised game, it usually includes the Yankees or Red Sox, or both.
With that being said, there has to be a way to give the smaller market teams a better advantage and I think it starts with sharing the big ticket items (merchandise, advertising and TV) like the NFL. If they were to accomplish this, I think the Yankees would spend less and the Rays would spend more. I think it’s also more feasible because the player’s union would be more receptive because the amount of total money spent would be the same, just distributed differently. But the Yankees and Red Sox have just amount as much influence as the big time oil tycoons and fat cats on wall street toward government initiatives. 🙂
I would be for sharing revenue more from merchandise because that would help give the smaller market teams more money to play with, although the pirates have been accused of holding onto revenue sharing money and not spending it.
But I would like it to be tied more to the nfl when it comes to revenue sharing.
I dont think the yankees/red sox woudl spend less, I think they would just raise ticket prices and still sell out personally 😛 But it wouldl help out hte rays.
all merchandise sales are already shared by the teams, the yanks sell the most but get an equal share in the end.
Ah ok I thought there was some revenue sharing with merchandise already but wasnt 100% sure and he posted that so I was like oh alright. Do they share TV revnue and whatnot though? I dont think they do, which would really help. I could be wrong though.
No, they don’t and the YES is a cash cow for the Yankees as if they didn’t get enough through the gates.
Well that would fix it better then the worthless salary cap.
It’s hard to have a conversation about the economics of the league when you aren’t familiar with the basics …
lol dude it was brought up by someone else and I wasnt 100% sure, I meant to say tv deals and whatnot which I was pretty sure wasnt shared.
Still, its hard to argue with someone that thinks the red sox spending 140 million and the pirates still spending 30 million will help make them more competitive. Do you really think the pirates would be all GIMME FREE AGENTS. hell naw.
It’s hard (or impossible) to have an intelligent discussion with you when:
1. You don’t under the basics of the MLB economic system. If you didn’t know merchandise sales were shared, and weren’t sure how the TV deals worked, what do you really know?
2. You ignore everything I say and keep repeating an ignorant statement about the Red Sox and Pirates as though their relationship applies to the entire league.
1. I fail to see how that applies to any argument about the cap, quit nit picking I know luxury tax is shared and merchandise I was pretty sure on, and tv deals I didnt think were. So um yea…
2. ITS ABOUT LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD!!! how much would it level it, please answer it. 100 mill more instead of 120 mil more.
Because if you don’t under the basics, what business do you have discussing a cap system?
You weren’t sure what happens to merchandise sales (as you suggest sharing would be a good idea) and you had to ask someone else how the TV deals work.
You just don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to MLB economics.
I wanted to make sure I was right? Cap is a cap, revenue sharing is revenue sharinng, and again continue to talk about something while avoiding my main question.
I can pick you apart as well,t he red sox payroll is 160 not 170, how can I talk to you when you dont even nkow baseball payrolls!!!!@#@#@
See? quit dodging.
“I would be for sharing revenue more from merchandise because that would help give the smaller market teams more money to play with, although the pirates have been accused of holding onto revenue sharing money and not spending it.”
That tells me you don’t have a clue, not just weren’t sure.
And if you want to nit-pick, the Red Sox’s payroll was at 168 million last year and currently sits at 162.5 million plus the salaries of a few pre arbitration players who will likely make the team but aren’t included yet.
Google “Cot’s baseball contracts” if you need more information.
What am I dodging?
Yeah, but judging by your name, you’re clearly one of the delusional small market fans …
Yes there should!!!!!
It’s great to see an exec of a large market team say that even HE thinks it’s unfair that he can spend more money than other teams.
So we can have mediocrity just like the nfl and nhl?
If you haven’t noticed, NFL is getting MORE money from ESPN to air it, whereas MLB is projected to get LESS money. I don’t think anyone cares about mediocrity, but they do care about other teams having an advantage over others.
The NHL has really taken off too. If I’m not mistaken, the NBA has a salary cap also.
their should be a salary minimum(florida Marlins) and if their is to be a max id put it pretty high(New York Yankees)
If anything there needs to be a salary floor.
A bunch of swear words comes to mind, that shouldn’t been said on these threads.
I’m probably one of the few people who DOESN’T want a salary-cap in baseball.
The thing is that having bloated payrolls creates fierce hatreds of evil-empires, rivalries, and underdogs. I hate built-in-equality. You wouldn’t have the whole massive loathing of the Yankees and Red Sox without a salary-cap, and I think that this dynamic is healthy and good for baseball.
It also makes it that much sweeter when an impoverished team like the Pirates or Padres can actually pull one out.
Whenever anyone tries to make anything “equal,” all they really do is make everything and everyone the same.
(As a Cardinals fan,) I wouldn’t mind Pujols signing with the Red Sox or Cubs for 30 mil. That will just make the hatred and drama that much sweeter. For me, that kind of intensity is perfectly healthy. I’d love to go against Pujols as much as I like to support him currently.
I don’t know, I think the hatred has built up enough that a salary cap wouldn’t erase it overnight.
I don’t have kids yet, but they’ll hate NY and Boston or I haven’t raised them right.
Handicapped sports just isn’t exciting or fun.
Levelling the playing-field feels like those corny and rigged PC “participation trophies” on a massive scale.
Socialism and American competitive sports don’t mix.
Even the whole fun of winning a World Series would be watered down knowing that your team, and no other team would have the financial room to keep their players together for a dynasty run. The constant reshuffling would be infinitely pointless and directionless. It would be almost impossible for a team to retain all of its developed stars knowig their budget limitations.
I’d rather force teams like Pittsburg and Florida to be more inventive and resourceful, and up their own ante, rather then those teams get ahead by dragging the top teams down.
I think the popularity and success of the NFL would disagree.
Is the NFL necessarily more popular with the salary cap?
I think it’s safe to say the NFL is as, if not more, popular today as it’s ever been. Perhaps that’s in spite of the cap, perhaps it’s because of the cap.
But the cap is in place and the league has risen to heights never seen before.
I would put the NFL’s popularity more on the quality of 21st century media and advertising prowess.
I see nothing to suggest the NFL would be any less popular without a salary cap tbh, but you may be right though.
I’m not going to get into a drawn out argument on popularity of the NFL, how and why it’s happening, etc … My point is that much of what you said about how “communism and American sports don’t mix” flies in the face of what the NFL is doing.
I just think any time you can have your season decided on the field instead of by budgets, attendance and media markets, it’s a good thing for us a fans.
Plus, there’s already plenty of “communism” is baseball. Revenue sharing, luxury tax, etc. Is that ruining the game? No, it’s just keeping the small market owners happy as they’re still able to make a profit.
It is helping (the NFL) season off the field by determining that no team will ever be “too unequal” in a financial sense.
I don’t want the wins to come for my small-market team, knowing that they only won because their big-market opponent was hamstrung from putting out their maximum financial potential on the field. I want my small-market team to go try and pull off a massive upset, not get a cheap and predictable victory against an emasculated paper-tiger.
I don’t like the idea of “knowing” that my team’s success will come in predictable cycles. It feels like a fabricated mirage.
I understand the underdog mentality, but I’m not really buying all of that …
I don’t think you’ll find any Giants fan saying, “Well, we just won the World Series and all, but it feels a little cheap and predictable because we spent more than San Diego and Arizona.”
Or Packer fans saying “Well, it was nice to beat Pittsburgh and all, I just wish they could have spent more on their team. Then it’d be real.”
A small market team can still “upset” the Yankees if they had a cap at say, 160 million. I guess I should have stated earlier that I’m not for a cap that every team struggles to stay under. Just perhaps one that majority of teams couldn’t hit if they doubled what they could feasibly spend.
NFL didnt have a cap this season and had record numbers!!!
Note I am not saying that the salary cap and the nfls popularity go hand in hand like you are, but merely pointing out how foolish what you are saying is.
Yes, it was an uncapped year, but the league still operated under the assumption that a cap would return next year. You didn’t see any one team spending 5 times what another team could afford to do. So it’s just as foolish to pretend, or assert, that the lack of a salary cap increased the popularity of the league.
Is it as foolish to pretend as a joke? Personally I think that the person that asserts salary cap will help ratings and ignores the biggest contract for a qb ever handed out is the fool. Still uncapped year. No salary cap, teams did spend hell you saw the biggest contract for a qb handed out!
Salary cap is not what makes the nfl popular, football is. So the whole “SALARY CAP WILL INCREASE RATINGS AND GETS US MORE FROM ESPN” is just ridiculous on every facet.
… but the league wasn’t operating as though a cap didn’t exist because they knew it’d be coming back. And no, you didn’t see one NFL team sign the top 3 or 4 free agents because they outbid everyone else.
I’ve never said a cap in baseball would create higher ESPN ratings for MLB. I’ve said the NFL goes against all the “communist” points Kaiser made because it has thrived under a cap system.
What I said about baseball is that a cap system would increase the competitive balance of the year by helping to limit the huge financial advantage a few teams enjoy. You can’t begin to argue that point because you know it does give teams a huge advantage, otherwise they’d save their money.
umm pretty sure i did in my other posts…
So you’re setting up you own arguments and then knocking them down? I don’t get your point …
When did I knock them down?
I guess I just will knock down every argument you make just to further embarass you, even the irrelevant ones.
What top free agents were out there for hte teams to go after? I mean really, there werent any big names seeking big money and the largest deal in history was signed.
“I think the popularity and success of the NFL would disagree. ” umm right there you said it was popular in a response to the salary cap.
And yet you continue saying a point I have refuted time and time again and you refuse to answer, read holliday/pujols/westrbook, his post essentially says what I am saying only nicer. Obviously at this point you are just straw manning me.
You’re not embarrassed because you don’t know any better …
Like I’ve said, just because the league wasn’t capped THIS year, it still acted as though a cap would return because it will.
No, I didn’t say the NFL was popular because of a salary cap. Kaiser said caps (communism, whatever) kill American sports. I said the NFL would disagree as they have flourished under a cap system, not failed. Start reading my comments in context rather than just looking for something to disagree with.
Good job! “They didnt spend money, because their werent any good FA out there worthy of it, but they still operated as if there was a cap despite brady getting a record deal and draft picks signing record deals!” is your argument. Lol.
Those deals were signed with intention of them being within next year’s cap … and record deals will be signed next year WITH a cap. You have no point here … try again.
Where is your proof?
Because everyone knows the cap will return when the new CBA is worked out? And “record” deals are signed all the time as time goes on … You really, really are this dense, I don’t need to ask.
So again let me restate your argument
“no free agents were worthy of big contracts so there was no need to spend last offseason, but they still operated in a cap, and record deals will happen again eventually because they always do therefore I am right.”
lolz
I am not meaning to pick on you but, you got it wrong my friend. I am a republican and feel that socialism is extremely evil. These organizations are individually ran teams that need to make a profit to survive. There has been talk of contraction in recent years. The avg. price to go to a game is skyrocketing. Baseball is a business and needs to compete across the board.
To level payroll is not apples to apples when comparing to socialism. Another thing the constant reshuffling I do not get. I mean yeah I see it in the NBA but lets face it the NBA needs a lot of help. The NFL has so many teams that keeps theur core together. I mean you see a lot of movement but the NFL is just so brutal you do not see the long careers like you do in baseball.
I think baseball has gotten a long just fine for a long time but over the last 20 years you can see things slowly turning to where the money markets are becoming more pronounced and the organizations that you say need to be more “inventive” are dealing with markets that cannot be grown by I guess a inventive marketing campaign or Elvis nights.
I’ll just say this it is gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better and the “hatred” you speak fondly of many fans will just turn towards the MLB and not certain teams and then the pooh will really hit the fan.
The reason many fans will turn on the MLB is because the “inventive” marketing strategies equate to the snowballing demand for instant gratification and instant on-field success.
Its a problem with the fans, not baseball when some people can’t even be patient for 2 or 3 years to rebuild, and instead have to be distracted with shiny toys or vent their anger on the Evil-Empires.
I agree that Bill-Veeck style Grocery-giveaways and midget-nights won’t capture the attention of the fans like it worked 50 years ago.
So then the answer is to artificially level-the-field and guarantee success in cycles to keep everyone attuned and happy indefinitely? That’s ok. I’d rather not pander to the instant-gratification generation
Uh, instant gratification? Sure, there are some feel-good rags-to-riches (or worst-to-first, if you will) in baseball. But those are the exceptions. Tell fans of the Royals they just need to be patient. Tell it to Pirates fans. Or the Nationals, or the Mariners. You can claim that the Padres and the Indians and the A’s are exceptions. But really they just prove the rule — these teams put together storybook seasons here and there and then are awful to watch most of the rest of the time. They can’t compete on an annual basis because they can’t keep pace with the amount other teams — like the Yankees and Red Sox — are able to spend.
The problem *isn’t* that baseball fans desire instant gratification. It’s that owners are out to make a profit, and in some cities they are able to spend a great deal more than in other cities. A salary cap wouldn’t make Jeffrey Loria spend money if he doesn’t want to do so. Instead, it would reduce the extent to which a small group of teams are able to dominate year after year, both financially and in the standings.
I don’t think any fans of any team, even the Royals and Pirates, are entitled to anything. The Yankees were a league joke for decades until they were handed Babe Ruth.
It takes time to rebuild a good club on a solid foundation, instead of just trying to buy success with mega-deals for transient mercenary free-agents, and miracle trades that fans seem to expect and demand. Success that comes that artificially leaves you as quickly as it comes. They Yankees and Red-Sox can get away with this inefficient model because they do have deep pockets. More power to them.
Every team has had periods of futility, and many of these periods have lasted for several decades. Its a matter of taking time for the Orioles, Pirates, and Royals to find new workable models, not dither and whine about the inequity of the system. If their fans don’t have the patience to wait 5 or 6 years, than they are as low as the entitled fans of the Sox and Yankees. Victory that comes annually is cheap and worthless.
Teams like the Indians, Red Sox, and White Sox all had decades and decades of futility in their own logs……… You can find a similar period for pretty much every team. There are only so many wins to go around per-league every year. For every team win, some other team will take a loss. It artificially feels good to have lots of rags-to-riches stories, but over time, it just gets common and trite.
Winning itself becomes monotonous and unexciting without being counterbalanced by the lows and losing. When the Royals and Pirates finally do figure it out and win, they will appreciate it exponentially greater, than the would if it was just handed to them by an artificial construct designed to virtually guarantee cycles of success.
When is the last time the salary cap handed the Lions a championship?
Don’t bring the Lions into it…next year is our year!
“I don’t have kids yet, but they’ll hate NY and Boston or I haven’t raised them right.”
I’m a Red Sox fan, and I love this. Baseball is such a wonderful thing. And I’m not being sarcastic, I just love how passionate people are.
… and I’d hate you guys just as much as an Orioles fan even if you couldn’t spend more than 150 million on payroll.
Why? Because you win, we lose, and that sucks.
“I’m a Red Sox fan”
did not know this about you
do you wanna do karate in the garage?
Whoa, I think you can only hate either the Yankees or the Red Sox, not both. Ha ha ha
No, there’s enough hate in Baltimore to go around.
I’m with you. I enjoy that baseball is both a competition on and off the field. I mean, if we’re trying to make everything equal, why not just go through a series of coin tosses to decide the World Champions every year.
Is that all the NFL has become with their cap? Because they manage to capture a lot of attention for a bunch of coin flips …
The point is, what is wrong with the competition as it stands? If it’s not broken don’t fix it.
And don’t say Albert Pujols hitting the market is a sign that there needs to be a cap because a cap would actually make it that much harder to keep a star player for their entire career. Every extension then would be completely dependent on cap space and would have nothing to do with how much income the player generates.
What is wrong with it? Well, you see the advantages the large markets have each year in the standings. The Rays can’t afford a 60 million dollar payroll while the Yankees are spending in excess of 200 million? No problems there?
And not all caps needs to follow the model the NFL is using. It could be a high cap that prevents teams like the Yankees from spending 4 or 5 times as much as other organizations. Spending 3 times as much should suffice, no?
Don’t you think that has something to do with the 13 fans who are in attendance at Ray’s games?
Regardless of what the Rays do, they’ll never have the financial advantage that the Yankees have. At least not in my lifetime.
Are the Lakers the same as the Pacers? Are the Patriots the same as the Lions? Better run organizations still find themselves at the top. There will still be drafts, free agency and minor league development.
I do not think this statement “Whenever anyone tries to make anything “equal,” all they really do is make everything and everyone the same.” is correct. Baseball would be just as competitive the major difference is instead of the Prates developing and losing players they might be able to stick around developing some consistency for the fan base.
I hope it happens but I hope it is done well. I just do not see as much value in the build up of “hatred” as I do for example in the Indians being able to keep Manny home for his career and his prime and not these players leaving causing the fans to feel vacated or deserted. That really hurts the game, I am sorry but it does. The borderline fan tends to lose interest and do other things. There are a lot of things competing in the summertime for that entertainment dollar.
I think you are wrong and have been spoiled by an organization that can open the checkbook not as much as others but I think you need to rethink alot of those statements.
The thing is that I see a huge value in “losing.” i don’t mind at all having the formative character and team-building experiences that come from decades of futility and trial-and-error.
I am honestly the kind of fan who cares more about how the victory comes about and the contrast from the highs to the lows, as opposed to bought victories and the idea of a crass amount of winning.
I don’t feel especiallly entitled to Pujols and Holliday, or any other big contracts the Cardinals have handed out. I would be fine trying to win without them if the circumstances called for it. I’m not interested in pandering to borderline fans who are only interested in casual victores but won’t develop that deep-seated loyalty and stick out the bad times.
The best victories only come after the ultimate lows, and I’m fine with going through those down periods to get that high. Mabye other people just want to be guaranteed constant success, or at least competitiveness. That’s fine, but i don’t need it. I just feel like I know the value of hitting rock-bottom and what it means to come back from that, and mabye not even having the guarantee of ever finding success again.
I don’t like the idea of just “passing the buck” indefinitely. It just seems pointless to me TBH.
Hey guys, they only give us so many comments for each article. Can we just be equal and share the amount of comments?
Im just stirring the pot thats all
I think there is a pretty fierce shared hatred of the Lakers and Patriots, and both of them operate under a salary cap. Good teams get hated on no matter the money spent.
You’re not a real Cardinals fan if you can stomach Pujols signing with the Cubs.
I wouldn’t like it, but it would be that kind of stunning blow that makes you feel alive.
While I think he is a great player, I really don’t worship the guy or put him on a pedastal. In fact, I get tired of TLR playing to pad Pujols’s stats with boneheaded moves like batting the pitcher 8th.
The Cardinals have been weak on team depth since 2004, largely thanks to concentration of team resources in Pujols.
Its not a matter of “stomaching” Pujols going elsewhere, but I can see the potential in it to reinvent the team. The Cardinals have been static and haven’t won a playoff game since 2006, thanks to the static TLR regime and the over-doting on Pujols.
I’m fine with Pujols going and saddling the Cubs with a massive untradeable contract for a player who doesn’t play a premium defensive position. I’m 50/50 on getting ready for the Cards just to get past the Pujols era, instead of paying him 30 million or so a year and letting the rest of the team continue to age and erode around him.
I think he is a great guy and all, but its not all about Pujols. The lineup has been Pujols and the 7-midgets for too long.
“I wouldn’t like it, but it would be that kind of stunning blow that makes you feel alive. ”
If you need to see your star player playing for your rival to feel alive, you’re not doing it right.
lol………..
I don’t “need” to see Pujols playing for the Cubs……….. I just don’t buy in to the whole pathetic group-think worship of the guy.
That comment was only for my amusement … there was no point to be made. I just thought you got a little far out there in trying to display your underdog mentality.
Yeah, I know…….. I’m just not one of those Cardinals fans who literally think the world will end in 2012 if Pujols goes elsewhere.
And when in recent memory did the Pirates and Padres make it big on their fixed budgets? Having bloated budgets like Boston and NY doesn’t benefit the rest of MLB–it just benefits those teams.
didn’t the Padres win 90 games last year, or something like that?
Kenny Williams is becoming nearly as goofy a public presence as his nutty manager is.
How is he goofy? (Not saying I necessarily disagree, or that it’s bad). Just interested in what you mean here.
Think he means by how he conducts himself to the media. The things he says are often ridiculous, and total B.S. That does not make him a bad GM, however, though I do disagree with what he said.
What Baba said. I just think he “speaks his mind” WAY too much for a guy in his kind of position. He’s not as outlandish as Ozzie, sure, but he definitely says too much sometimes.
Newsflash: The Pirates are out too.
“he’d be okay with the game being “shut down” in order to correct the issue.”
Ok, we’re not talking about giving Juan Pierre or Mark Burhele $30M, we’re talking about giving it to a guy who’s probably already a first ballot HOFer. But no, let’s have a lockout. I’ve never really minded Kenny Williams before, never thought he was a great GM, but now I just think the guy is moron.
Kenny would give his left nut to have Pujols at 1st base for the White Sox. He would hit 75 home runs a year at the bandbox that is US Cellular.
Ok, really. I need to wait to get my comment approved because I called Kenny Williams a word that starts with m and rhymes with oron?
a McMoron?
I like Kenny as a GM but he is at his best when he is M.I.A.
Well it doesn’t look like my comment will be approved so I’ll say this: If Kenny Williams thinks a lockout is the best response to giving $30M a year to a guy who’s pretty much already a first ballot HOFer then he’s ******* *****. See I didn’t say it this time.
Seriously though, shutting down the game is the best answer? Oh yes, I recall how the last strike did wonders for the game, players and owners alike.
apparently spending 120m dollars this offseason is his solution.
As i said, i think his is a good gm but the microphone is not his friend.
Didn’t think I’d find myself agreeing with “start_wearing_purple” but he’s right, saying you are okay with a lockout/strike says a lot about your intelligence, and what it says would be pending approval on this thread.
I don’t wanna overstep my boundaries, but the language/content filter is pretty “word that starts with i and rhymes with fidiotic”.
The filter is ridiculous on here, and the mods don’t approve a lot. I posted a response to a story about Dustin McGowan that said that the writer had basically stolen an article from MLB’s Jays beat writer with a link to the story, and they never approved it.
Ridiculous.
i dunno you guys, i haven’t noticed much in the way of harsh or arbitrary comment policing =D
I blame the difference in DH rule between the leagues here- when the Yanks signed ARod to the big extension they had to think the DH would be a nice fallback position and security blanket. It’s just not fair that the Cards (or Cubs) have to play by different rules but yet still be expected to pay the player an equal contract. Forget 40 yr old, how many 38,36 yr old 1B’s are chugging along at an elite level …
I agree with this.
I’ve never thought about that, but it’s a really good point.
sounds a lot like david sampson and larry beinfest when they spoke about it. i totally agree.
Let’s all watch Albert Pujols slowly turn into Todd Helton before our eyes, and talk endlessly about what to do with the money coming off the books in 2021.
2 problems with Pujols to the Sox:
1. They can’t afford him. Not enough people show up to the park.
2. Why the hell would he want to go to the South Side lol?
I agree with #1, but if he doesn’t want to go to the White Sox he sure as hell wouldn’t want to go to the cubs!
What a stupid comment! You must be from the north side, did you ever think maybe Albert would want to go to to go a contender instead of a loser 103 years and counting? and in case you haven’t noticed last year there were a lot of empty seats in that crumbling old smelly ball park!
Quit using that lame excuse..get a life, at least our team puts a contender on the field, doesn’t cheat their fans! LOL
That’s mighty strong talk from a team that had an 87 year losing streak only 6 years ago.
he’s a white sox fan
I know, and I’m a Twins fan. I was going to question how much they’ve been contending the last 10 years, but they do have a couple of division titles and a ring while the Twins keep getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs.
To the victors go the spoils. Wouldn’t you agree?
Its more of the White Sox competing vs. Cubs attendance argument. Over the last 21 years, the White Sox have competed (finished 1st or 2nd in their division) 15 times. The Cubs have (1st or 2nd) 5 times. 15/21 (71%) > 5/21 (24%). In fact, the Cubs have finished dead last 5 times as well, White Sox 0.
This is beating a dead horse, but why do White Sox fans always come up with the “Cubs suck, Cubs haven’t won in a hundred years” argument when discussing your own team.
Until you can get over the inferiority complex you put on yourself, the Sox will always take a back seat to the Cubs in interest, attendance, etc..
I lived in N.Y. for a short time, but never once did I hear a Yankee fan defend his team by saying “Oh yea, well the Mets suck”.
I think the Yankees 27 championships may have something to do with that.
Having the Indians and Royals in the division helps. Essentially, your finishing 1st or 2nd in a 3 team race.
And the NL Central is that much more strong? In 7 of the last 11 years, both the AL and NL Central have had the majority of the division finish .500 or below. Neither division is a power house.
And to say that the Indians (four .500+ seasons in last 10, powerhouse in 90’s) and Royals (one .500+ season in last 10) organizations are worlds below the Pirates (18 consecutive sub .500 seasons), Reds (one .500+ season’s in last 10), and Brewers (three .500+ seasons in last 10) is ridiculous.
Once again, I’m not comparing the White Sox to the Cubs or the AL Central to the NL Central.
Please educate me. I do not understand why “the Cubs suck” obsession is so important to White Sox fans.
The Cubs are not the Sox problem. The Twins are the Sox problem. 10,000 empty seats a game at US Cellular during a pennant chase is also the Sox problem.
Honestly, there is just as much “the Sox suck” as “the Cubs suck” obsession. And I only say there is more “the Sox suck” out there because there are entirely many more Cubs fans out there. I absolutely do not think all Cubs fans are like that, but I do feel that there is the same percentage of sox fans as cubs fans that only care about how the other does. I agree with you in the sense where 6 games against the cubs per year is less than a third as important (to me) as the 19 each we play vs the twins and tigers. However, please don’t be ignorant in thinking that only the sox fans obsess in complaining about the cubs. Cubs fans easily do just as much.
Yes and let’s talk about the Twins vs Yankees losing streak in the post season, What’s that at now?
I don’t remember the last time the White Sox beat the Yankees in a series… maybe because they haven’t had enough post-season opprotunities.
Well it’s going to be an exciting year in 2011, we’ll just have to wait and see what happens won’t we?
Good Luck, hope Jim Thome hits his 600th home run, but of course not against the White Sox.
i don’t think i mentioned that excuse once. Read before you decide to talk big man.
doesn’t cheat their fans? Your GM just said he wouldn’t mind work stoppage in order to get a salary cap, talk about cheating fans… that mentality cheats all fans.
Wrigley isn’t crumbling as fast as the South Side of Chicago. I’m very sorry to say it, but it’s true, and anyone who lives here knows what I’m talking about. I’m a born and raised Southsider, but I’m looking to get the h*ll out. And the handful of times that I’ve made it up to the Northside, it’s like a breath of fresh air that you don’t have to be uneasy about walking around the neighborhoods after dark up there.
Agree with you about walking around the neighborhood at night wouldn’t want to do that. You go to the south side to watch baseball, the park is beautiful and the food is good, gets a bad rap because of location. Never had any problems ever, very safe and well patrolled.
Saw the Bears play the Lions last year in Detroit, you don’t want to hang around that neighborhood for sure, worse than the south side.
Stop living in a fantasy world. Everywhere in the world there are bad neighborhoods here and there. Chicago is FILLED with richy neighborhoods a block away from the projects. That’s real life. Back in the day, before the North Side got so hipster, that whole area was a h*ll hole, too.
1 Problem with Pujols to the Sox:
1. Your GM publicly stated he wont be on the Sox
Yes, because sports executives are honest about everything they say.
“Dream weaver
I’ve just closed my eyes again
Climbed aboard the dream weaver train
Driver take away my worries of today
And leave tomorrow behind
Ooh dream weaver”
Definitely a Cubs fan.
that is so surprising that baseball owners and execs want to cap player salaries. i wonder why they feel so strongly about that
strange, it’s like they have to pay them or something.
Why do you keep getting banned and then unbanned?
superhero powers. in both cases
Some drunk idiot just knocked out the power on his street with his car 😉 No big deal …
I think Williams is making an obvious point, but what I don’t get is how he thinks you shouldn’t pay $30 million for players. Using the semi-arbitrary $5 Million/ WAR model, Pujols was worth over $35 million in a down year. And that was all at one position. As long as you don’t put negative-value players at other positions, is it not money well spent if you get 7-8 WAR at one position instead of 2-3 at three?
Because if he gets hurt, or drops off to human like production, you’re overpaying in a huge way.
where were all of these people when rodriguez signed his contract?
I dont think they realized the consequences before
I could definitely see Prince Fielder in a White Sox uniform next year though.
Is someone getting traded?
Where are Dunn, Konerko and Prince going to play?
Just throw Prince at shortstop, why the f not? /sarcasm
How about a Paul Konerko trade… Send Prince Fielder over for a package. Then an extension.
yeah lets trade him after we just signed him to a 3 yr deal. Let’s alienate our best and most well known white sox in the last decade. Makes a lot of sense i guess. Oh and why would Prince want to play for the White Sox haha
you use words like “lets”, “we”, and “our”
Then say why would he want to play for the Sox?
Whos side are you on?
How about a realistic idea …
I wonder how many of the people who think Pujols is worth the money will be the first ones whining when hes 5 years older, not putting up the huge numbers anymore, is hurting the team in the field and still constitutes about 25% of his teams payroll.
Unless youre the Cubs and are hoping Pujols can FINALLY get you to a WS in the next few years, hes not worth 10 years at 30 mil per.
Pujols is the best player of the game and one of the best of all time. Now Arod gets 27 per. howard gets 25 and a bunch of other player getting their duce. Pujols deserves better than anybody right now.
who is kenny williams anyways?
But Kenny what if you were to get 1 billiiiiiiiooooooon dollars (pinky to corner of mouth)
I think people are blowing all of this way out of proportion. First off, Pujols to the Sox is obviously not going to happen. Anybody who has thought otherwise probably wasn’t really thinking about it. Adam Dunn and Paul Konerko pretty much have 1B / DH locked up for a while. Where’s Pujols going to play? RF? Out of the three of the players listed Pujols would probably be best there. Regardless it will NOT HAPPEN!!
Most unneeded article ever written on this site.
I believe that title goes to “Nationals, Eckstein Have Not Talked Recently.”
Kenny Williams is the master of the smokescreen and he always gets who he wants. This seals it, Albert Pujols will sign with the White Sox! Juan Pierre is keeping left field warm for you Machine.
I also like the idea of any team, even a small-market team being able to become perennially dominant and build an extended dynasty……… rather than it being virtually certain that they will just keep passing the buck, over and over again.
Not happening for a small market team under the current system. The Rays just watched a fifth of their team walk away for bigger paychecks.
What kenny williams would do with 30 million:
Resign Carl Everett to a long term deal.
Extend deals to Juan Pierre and Carlos Quentin, the absolute WORST defensive corner outfield duo in the history of White Sox Baseball maybe even all of baseball.
Trade half the minor league system to acquire Jonathan Paplebon and sign him long term.
Throw more money to light hitting AJ Pierzynski because he “handles a pitching staff”
Hire more international scouts with explicit instruction to skim off the top until all 30 million dollars is recovered.
….or you could have the greatest hitter in the history of the game!!!!
A few things aj hit awesomely after the all star break. You might want to check juan’s uzr before calling him a bad defender and why would Kenny throw money at pap when he just non tendered jenks?
After the all star break. You basically said, he had an ENTIRE HALF OF A SEASON where he hit like total crap! Probably cost u the division. Tough to defend. Defending Pierre’s Defense? WOW! There is not a team in baseball that wouldn’t run on Pierre on a shallow fly ball to left with 1 out and a man on third. Again, WOW!
Kenny Williams is just trying to save face here. He knows along with anyone with half a brain that the Chicago White Sox would be one of the absolute LAST PLACES in baseball Albert Pujols would want to play. Seriously, going from the Cardinals to the White Sox is like tranporting via a private jet to getting mugged on the subway, daily. Williams instead says, White Sox will not pursue Pujols as if they even had a ice cream cones chance in hell at signing him.
I guess you would know something about muggings since you wear a sideways baseball hat like a gangbanger
That’s news to me, you must be blind in one eye.
Alternate headline: “Guy who gives out salaries hopes salaries do not go any higher.”
Ding. We have a winner.
Is Pujols even going to play for the Cards this season or he is already taking offers in free agency?
I wouldn’t mind seeing MLB adopt a salary cap similar to the NHL. The salary cap/floor system is best for the fans IMO. Royals and Pirates fans have no hope year after year after year, but you can bet just about anything that the Yankees and Red Sox will be competitive. In the NHL, almost every team is playing meaningful games later in the season. In baseball, teams like the Pirates and Royals never really stood much of a chance from the beginning. There are a few bad teams in the NHL, but most of that is because of bad hockey decisions, not financial decisions. Smaller market baseball teams would stand more of a chance if they didn’t have to trade away all of their best players right when they hit their prime.
The Royals have plenty of money to compete, they just spent too much on players like Meche and Guillen. I think they will get things turned around in the next few years if they spend their money more wisely.
Oh God…get out of here with this nhl bs, in the nhl teams can never keep players…I dont watch hockey much but when I watch it I feel as if they have a draft containing every nhl player each year because players switch teams every year. The blackhawks won a few years ago and the next year lost half of their team.
You could say the same thing about small market baseball teams though because they can’t keep their good players either for the most part. In the NHL, the majority of teams are able to keep their star players. Teams may not be able to keep the whole roster, but the big guys usually get locked up. What’s more important is teams that do trade those players don’t always trade them to bigger markets. Because the larger markets can only spend so much money, those players are going to a variety of different teams instead of just a select few.
Let’s say a small market MLB team drafts a potentially great player. That player takes a few years to develop. By the time that player is productive and in his prime, the team can no longer afford him and trades him to a big market team in exchange for more young players who will take years to develop. By the time those players reach their prime guess what happens. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There are of course exceptions, but this is the case with quite a few teams.
Just my opinion, but I think a salary cap would help prevent big market teams from constantly dominating the league and force teams to be more creative to win instead of just buying up all the best players. I’m not sure that a cap will happen anytime soon in Baseball, I just think a more competitive league would be better for the fans.
The White Sox could load their team up with 50 home run guys and they’d still lose the division to the Twins.
yep, all those twins world series were awesome.
Okay, I have an idea…
Salary caps are a bad idea. I already went through one player strike in 1994 which turned me off to baseball for 10 years.
But…What the players association should do along with the MLB is set up a fund. Aside the same kickback money that’s given to underdog teams, create a separate account for home team discounts for 10-and-5 players. I hypothetically suggest the Cardinals should get a 15-20% MLB discount. Pujols not only makes the Cardinals money, he makes the MLB money and THEY should pick up some of the tab.
I’m not a fan of the Cardinals at all, but the fact they could lose their entire franchise over a justifiably ridiculous amount of cash is bad for baseball. I say justifiable because if the Yankees didn’t have Tex, you know they’d sign him in a heartbeat.
That still is just not sports. There is no longer an even playing field. At that point in time, it’s an auction.
Granted, I think this is an American sport and if your team has the money, it should have the right to spend it. However, sucking 10-and-5 lifetime franchise players from their current home team should offer them some kind of home team advantage. That way there’s a hedge for teams less rich than 100 year old East coast teams to stay competitive and the MLB is not stuck with some lousy salary cap.
If the Yankees STILL trump that agreement with the added MLB benefit given to the 10-and-5 player’s team? …Play ball.
At least then there’s hopefully no baseball strike.
Just a thought.
I hate the Yankees, and I hate the fact that my team has no way of competing on the FA market for big name players.
Would you also hate paying what yankees fans pay for their tickets?
A reply to Paul:
Blue Jays – Sox now? Well, for one, the Blue Jays are currently rebuilding and are trying to reduce payroll. However, when the Blue Jays are ready to compete in the next few years, a cap on the spending of their competition would be of more importance.
I’ll lay out the argument one last time and perhaps get a laugh in your attempt to refute it.
The Red Sox and Yankees both currently enjoy a significant financial advantage over the other teams in their division.
-If you limit their spending, to say 130 million, you have also limited some of the advantage they have over other teams.
– If you’ve somewhat limited their advantage, you’ve given their competition more of a chance to compete.
– If you’ve given the competition more of a chance to compete, you’ve created a more level playing field.
Now, please, try to tell me any of this isn’t true …
(Go ahead, try. And I’ll answer whatever question you think I’ve dodged.)
-Ok lets limit teams where they are strongest, how would you respond to me saying “the royals have a lot of talent in their farm thats bs you should not be allowed more then 5 propsects in the top 100” Red sox and yankees have that advantage because their fans show up and they develop good talent and sign them to extensions.
-In terms of spending money all you have done is cut player salaries, will the blue jays go out and pay for cliff lee? will the orioles? will the rays? doubt it.
-A more level playing field? Baseball has a fine level playing field atm, you have small market teams being smart with their finances and using THEIR advantages in scouting and developing players and putting hteir resources there to compete.
Well, I just blew a hole in everything you have said, now this is what you lose when you get a salary cap.
Players salaries will decrease
Fans will still have to pay top dollar for tickets in the big market areas
And biggest of all,. the offseason! The offseason in baseball is the BEST in sports period without question. With a salary cap trades would have to be balanced more in terms of salary and frankly teams would be more reluctant to trade for a star because of the cap. Players wouldnt change teams as often, the free agency period wouldnt be as entertaining, and players would be forced to leave the game earlier.
Now you keep heralding a cap but have not said if it would be a soft cap or a hard cap. Baseball atm has an unofficial soft cap with the luxury tax.
Quit complaining about advantages the other teams in your division has, their fans pay for that money, help support the tv networks and gives them those resources. Your team has draft picks and still strikes out.
Also when these big market teams swoop in and sign away one of your players(ok not yours because you are the orioles_ you get compensated! you think the rays front office is crying over losing their bullpen? HELL NO they got a ton of draft picks and will do what they have been doing.
Your three points are essentially all the same with a slight deviation, and all of it is “hey no fair” argument.
Personally the playing field in baseball is level enough, hell its right there with nfl/nhl for level playing field, and leaps and bounds ahead of the capped nba.
I have never heard you say “stupid dodgers, cubs, mets spend too much” its always “YANKEES RED SOX ONLY” YEa they are the top 2 teams now I get it, but the cubs will be right back up there next year and once the dodgers/mets get their ownsership figured out they will once again do that because its what big market teams do.
– The top prospect comment is laughable. Going for off the wall, extreme examples doesn’t help your argument, it makes you look stupid. If anything, the large market teams have more access to premium talent because they can afford to match, or go beyond, what any small market team can afford to offer to international talent. There will never be a draft pick that will bust the Yankee’s draft budget. Thankfully, in 2008, Matt Wieters fell to the O’s because the Pirates didn’t think they’d have the money to sign him.
– There are ways to ensure that player salaries still get the same percentage of overall revenue. Look at how the other leagues do it.
– I don’t know how you can say it’s a level playing field when one team can spend 200 million on payroll and another team would go under spending half that figure. Smaller markets have to put their money into scouting and development because it’s their only CHANCE to compete with the big spenders.
– I haven’t suggested a cap that all team would spend up to, or struggle to be under. In fact, I’ve suggested the opposite, so I’m not sure why you’re pretending fairly high cap would hinder the off season. Earlier you said a cap could cause teams to break up, now you’re saying it would prevent players from changing teams as often … so which is it?
– I haven’t mentioned the luxury tax because I’m surprised you know what it is. I think, though I’m not sure, it’d need to be a hard cap. The Yankee’s have that much of a financial advantage that they’re in a league of their own. They’ve paid more in luxury tax themselves than the rest of the league combined and still make a hefty profit. Any soft cap that would affect the rest of the large markets probably still wouldn’t slow the Yankees.
– I thought it was a level playing field; so what advantages, right? I do support my team and more causal fans would as well if they thought the Orioles had a shot in hell against the big boys of the division.
– Do you really think the Rays would rather have those picks or have kept CC? And as many picks as the Rays have, I’d be surprised if they are in top 5 in spending. Unfortunately, they’ll have to pass on more talented players because they can’t afford them.
– I haven’t been crying, or whining whatsoever. I’ve only stated that under the current system,the large market teams have a significant advantage. You’ve failed to even knowledge what is considered a basic concept, and even argued against it.
– How are the MLB and NFL the same in terms of level playing field? I’d say the huge differences in spending makes the MLB not level, so what is it about them both that is level?
– Obviously, I’ve used the Yankees because they’re in the a league of their own when it comes to spending. They spend a significant amount more than the biggest spenders. I’ve used the Red Sox because you kept trying to compare them to the Pirates for some odd reason. And because they’re in the division of the team I follow, I know more about them than I do the Cubs, Phillies, Dodgers, or whoever.
– Just so we’re clear; You’re against a cap because it would limit players salaries and it wouldn’t make the off season as fun?
Like I said, you can keep player salaries at the same rate by mandating a set percent of revenue is spent on players as the NFL does.
And the high caps I’ve suggested would rarely break up teams as you claimed earlier, nor would it prevent team to team movement because I’ve never suggested a number that all teams would struggle to stay under. I’ve suggested the opposite.
So I typed out a big long post and it was sent to approval, so screw it I will do quick little notes.
Red sox are at 130 mil, blue jays 60 mil, so they are still 2 times their payroll instead of 2.5 times, does that LEVEL the playing field enough? How much does it have to be to be leveled?
No team in baseball finished above .600 last year, only sport to do that, all others are capped. Id say the playign field is decently level
25/30 teams have made the playoffs in the past 10 years, not bad considering only 8 get in.
As for the players, well you are talkign about leveling hte playing field and an advantage of the sox/yankees is that they have fans who are devoted and willing to pay. So you are trying to get rid of their advantage, I want to get rid of the royals advantage for finishing in last every year and them having 8 prospects in BAs top 100. I think its ridiculous, because its getting rid of a teams inherent advantage because of where their franchise is at, however it is just as ridiculous as yours.
Also, I do think international players should be put into the draft, and that is something that might change in the next CBA. However go ahead and take your kei igawas! But I assume you are referring to amateurs, in which case the teams that scout typically end up with better results. As for paying, the smart teams are starting to spend a lot more into signing guys, heck look at longorias contract! Even the pirates are doing it!
Side note about devoted fans, the tigers were done in july and were still selling out games late into the season and I went to a game in september that was 80% full and we were 12 games back or something. Point is, if your fan base is good you do have an advantage.
– Their spending ability is an immense advantage … I’d like to see that capped a bit so that other teams have a more reasonable chance to compete.
It’s easier to ignore the problem outside of the AL East, and it’s especially so when your team appears to be one of the bigger spenders.
Again you say have a reasonable chance to compete but you cannot argue with the fact that in general baseball has a level playing field when compared to other sports. Also their advantage is given to them by their fanbase.
IMO your opinion is only centered on the al east.
I think your problems would be better addressed by splitting up the yankees/red sox and putting one of them in the central and moving either the tigers/white sox/indians.
How in the world does baseball have a level field compared to other sports? Baseball is the only on in which one team is spending 4-5 times as much as other teams.
Why would you move divisions if you think it’s a level playing field? And MLB isn’t doing that. ESPN loves the NYY-Boston games … it seems like every time they play it’s on a national broadcast.
Because I look at who wins? Lets use the nba. Teams finish UNDER .200!!! I dont think any baseball team has ever done that(I think the tigers were around .300 a few years ago.) Look at the standings now, so many teams are above .700, whens the last time someone did that in baseball? The 2001 mariners, and right now theres a handful of teams in the nba with over .700, and a few below .200. Its level because usually teams finish in between .600 and .400, unlike other sports. Also how many different champions have their been in basketball in 26 years? go ahead guess? SEVEN! Heat, Pistons, Bulls, Lakers, Celtics, Spurs and Rockets. How many different champions have their been in baseball since 2000? Red Sox, Yankees, White Sox, Giants, Angels, Marlins, Diamonbacks, and Cardinals. So thats 8 different teams since 2000, with only 2 repeats. Its way more of a level playing field then basketball, a sport with a cap. I picked basketball because 16 to 162 is a bleh comparison, the nhl doesnt figure win % really because they count OL, so its not really a “loss” so I used the NBA.
I never said I would be for it, I am saying that in terms of YOUR argument with the points you are making its makes more sense to split up the AL East.
Yeah, you still don’t get it. Regardless of the final standings, it’s a level playing field in the NBA. Why? Because they all get to spend the same amount of money and all have the same access to amateur talent. Some teams are run better than others but it doesn’t mean that they aren’t all playing by the same rules.
In the MLB, the fact that one team can regularly spend 2 to 3 times more than some teams could dream to spend tells you that they aren’t operating on a level playing field. You can pretend as though it is, but anyone rational person would come to the conclusion that it isn’t the case.
When I was debating this with Kaiser before you chimed in, he acknowledged it wasn’t close to a level playing field. His point was that he preferred the game that way with underdogs and upsetting the powers that be.
You on the other hand are so completely entrench in “being right” that you are trying to argue basic facts. The MLB isn’t a level playing field … Using MLB records doesn’t work because baseball teams have always finished generally between .400 and .600. Ya know, well before these large economic differences existed, and before free agency existed.
Go tigers
Let’s try this one.
Let’s say next year the NFL decides the cap rules aren’t going to apply to the Bears. As a result, the Bears go out and sign 3 or 4 of the top 20 free agents. Despite winning the SB, the Packers can’t afford Aaron Rodgers and he ends up getting trading to the Bears for some cheaper players. Roddy White’s contract has gotten out of hand, so he too ends up on the Bears. The same thing happens with several defensive players as well that I don’t care to lay out. All of this has resulted in the Bears payroll skyrocketing above 250 million while the rest of the league is capped around 130 million.
Is that a level playing field for the other teams?
ROFL wow really?!?!?!
Baseball has more leagues, more prospects, more rounds in the draft, it can sustain this system MUCH easier. I bring up twins and rays and you counter with the bears?>!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?! Are you kidding me?!?!?!
Also in your scenario that would NEVER happen, franchise tag baby!
But ok lets live in your world, again level the playing field! I would say let the results play out, but to really have a level field by your definition lets cap each team at 1 buck per player and draft after every season.
Go ahead, take a wide out we got his best years we can get younger, go ahead take an injury prone qb and give us comparable talent in 5-6 players and draft picks that are easier to control. Go ahead, I think you get my point. The prime of a persons career usually occurs in the late 20’s early 30s, in every sport teams usually control their players until that age then let them go and of course they decline because of age. There are some special players no doubt in baseball(bonds) that get better but for the most part they dont. So go ahead, pay 25 mil for what they did during their prime and will decline, I will take a bunch of prosects I have scouted and using my intelligent coaching staff and development team beat you.
BTW unlike you ignoring my twins/rays and lots of other things I simply did not see this, if you recall that was a post that I thought would not be approved so I edited it and you responded there. Simply did not see it
So, its still a level playing field, even if teams finish above .700 and below .200….wow really dude? Thats as much of a level playing field as .600 and .400? Are you serious right now?!?!?! A level playing field allows most teams to compete, baseball has it basketball doesnt. All of your arguments are pointed just at the AL east, mine is for baseball in general.
“Red sox are at 130 mil, blue jays 60 mil, so they are still 2 times their payroll instead of 2.5 times, does that LEVEL the playing field enough? How much does it have to be to be leveled?” Please answer that(i feel as if ive said that 100 times). Because your cap wont force teams to spend more.
Certain teams have advantages elsewhere, its that simple. Every team has advantages, if you have an avid fan base across the country well then you can afford a team if you dont then get one! Look at the twins, they were going to get contracted, they drafted smart signed certain players to extensions and now they have a new stadium that sells out and a 100mil payroll.
Your argument is essentially “THEY SPEND MORE THATS UNFAIR LOOK AT THE NUMBERS IT CANT POSSIBLY BE FAIR” but the point is, it all works out and different teams are still winning it every year and it works out. You know why? because unlike the yankees other teams have an average age of under 30! When you go out and sign players to these long contracts it comes with a price in the future.
I’ll repeat it because you’re that dense; Yes, the NBA has more of a level playing field because they all operate under the same rules. In the MLB, some teams can spend multiple times more than other teams; That isn’t a level playing field.
Hopefully you can understand this analogy. You and I decide to play 10 games of Chess. Because you aren’t that bright, I let you replace each of your Rooks with Queens. As a result, I’m only able to beat you 6 games out of 10. Does this mean we’re on a fairly level playing field, or I’m just a hell of a lot better at Chess than you? (Yes, the condescending attitude was necessary at this point.)
The fact that you even try to make these argument is laughable and it’s hard to take you serious if you genuinely believe what you’re saying. I hope you’re just making these claims in your zest to “win” the argument.
As for the Jays-Sox comment, go look at my answer to your Sox-Pirates question. Yes, that 2.5 to 2 times spending ratio would still make a difference. It would be the difference between a Carl Crawford and Mike Cameron starting in LF. It would likely preclude the Sox from trading for Gonzalez; Yes, I know he’s making 5 million this year, but I doubt they give up the prospects they did without being able to sign him long term. So yeah, the Jays have a better chance of competing this year if the Sox can’t make those moves. No, it wouldn’t make the Jays spend more; interesting, though, that you are inherently saying that spending more would help the Jays in this situation 😉
But since you can’t even admit that the big spending is a huge advantage, I’m done trying to enlighten you. You’re trying to argue that the sky isn’t blue and grass isn’t green; it’s only been an exercise in futilely for me and I’m done with it.
Your arguments are all in theory about the playing field not being level, mine are rooted in the facts that we are still operating where any team can win.
Lol really? so what you are saying is the red sox and blue jays had a level playing field last year(without crawford/gonzalez) and it was uncapped…..So how much of a difference would it really make? And the red sox have a lot of expiring contracts this year so they could afford it.
So essentially your argument is “You guys spend to much we cant compete, even though we still can compete in my theoretical world we cant because we have to work harder because our fans dont support us as much and its ok if you spend more then us but not 2.5 times more only 2 times more. k?”
Let me repeat AGAIN, EVERY TEAM HAS THEIR OWN ADVANTAGE! Use the advantages, every team has their own and it equals out to a level playing field. Continue to ignore points and live in your theoretical world instead of the here and now.
Forgot about your chess analogy which proves my point. You give me a ton of money to work with instead of intelligence(scouting) and I am still only able to win .40% of the time. That means you are better, because your intelligence trumped the money that my fans gave me.
Money is an advantage, I have never denied that, but baseball works out that different teams still win, it all goes down to the fans.
And before you go all GAFORE U SED MONEY IS AN ADVKALKJA reread what I have said, EVERY TEAM HAS THEIR ADVANTAGES whether it be the money their fans give them or the amazing prospects. Its all about utilizing what you have, and thanks for ignoring the twins.
Here’s the real difference kid;
Any team can scout, draft and develop players.
Only the large markets can support a 150+ million dollar payroll. There is nothing Tampa Bay can do to spend on NY’s level. Nothing. Sell outs included.
So, scouting, drafting well and developing players isn’t an “advantage” in the same sense that a large payroll is. You’re too dense or too stubborn to acknowledge this.
Get it? Of course not.
The Chess analogy went over your head. Way over. It only shows that having relatively close records percentage wise does NOT equate to a level playing field which is what you tried to say is happening with the NBA and MLB.
You are just mad because I chose to interpret it in a way that intelligence>what is given to you.
And yes, I would say its a level playing field, you only beat me 2 more times, I was 1 game away from being .500! I say we did make a decent compromise there and got close to completely fair results with those being .500.
lol no.
You know that analogy is 100% true.
But ok, you beating me 7/10 is much more level. Really, 6/10 is a good solution, and almost equal. Now mlb is more equal then that because no one is at .600 so its even closer.
lol you don’t get “it” in so many ways.
Fine you got me, 7/10 is more equal then 6/10.
Oh so high draft picks, trading guys for draft picks and watching others pay 20 mil plus while you enjoy the same production for far less isnt an advantage?
I am sure the rangers are crying about not being able to pay for tex, oh wait they got andrus and feliz outa it.
The big market teams have the pressure on them to spend a lot of money and trade away prospects for a win now mentality.
An advantage is something one, or a select few, possess, or are able to do.
ANY team can scout, draft and develop prospects. Any. ANY.
Only the larger markets can afford to sign premium free agent talent in general.
One is an advantage, one is not.
True, but what teams hold on to their prospects and actually develop them? What teams have the most prospects int he top 100? Again in this theoretical world you have constructed you are missing the reality. Therefore that IS an advantage.
Lets take a player you have referenced, A gon, and use your own thing about how the red sox wouldnt have traded for him.
A gon wants 20 mil a year at least, padres say look man we cant afford that but no one is giving us a lot for you because 20 mil a year would be so much of a 130 mil and the only teams that would have wanted you are just cutting their payroll, in fact arod was found dead with 12 porn stars because the yankees had to cut so much payroll it was the nly way they could get rid of him. So ok gonzalez, we can give you 10 mil a year tops, and in all honesty no other team can give you that, and we will be around 50 mil with that contract and personally we would rather put that 10 mil into 5 other prospects that we coudl get for you, but sadly as stated earlier the teams that want you dont want to give you that much of the salary anymore.
Okay, so one is an advantage and one is not. Just so we’re clear.
The rest just made me laugh.
Ok, this is getting even more ridiculous.
Level playing field already, quit crying proof is in the pudding and the outcomes
You ignore the rays, ignore the twins, ignore REAL things. You dont think the royals have a advantage over the red sox by having a ton of prospects you are just way wrong..
you are talking about leveling advantages and your way really wont accomplish anything at all because the red sox would still spend twice as much as the blue jays and other teams.
Where does your leveling end? You want a draft after every 5 years for a true “level” playing field?
New comment at the bottom … but do go back up and reply to my Bears post if you don’t mind.
by the way paul redsox payroll is 161 mil , so your facts are abit off including your comment that baseball has a level playing field, when a mlb GM speaks out about this that SAYS something, and he,s not a gm with a 60 mil payroll . in fact winning and being a team that has a chance at least , HAS everything to do with revenue ,drawing fans, tv exposure, tv revenue ,revenue from merchandise, How can it be a level playing field when a team, 2009 Yankees and paid Over 60 mil on 3 players when some team payrolls are not that. HOW is this level. only a fan of a team that can afford to buy a championship can twist the facts to somehow say its a level playing field.
and speaking of prospects once a team drafts a player they still have to sign them. alot of small market teams cant afford to sign all their draft picks and also keep there mlb roster payroll at a manageable level. both go hand and hand.
i feeling is if there is no salary cap then baseball should have a system that allows more teams in the playoffs
LOL dude I said the red sox are at 160 mil, unless you are referring to when I said 130 mil to go in long with his cap.
How is it level? look at the results and different championships and my other arguments.
OH REALLY THEY HAVE TO SIGN PROSPECTS?!?!?! Dang I guess the rays dont have any of their prospects like price/longoria under contract for awhile. Oh wait, they do?!?!?!?!
Learn grammar, learn reasoning, your block of text was more painfull to read then anything orangecards as put up.
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, todays markets it sad that a team can go out each year and buy a championship, or every year just have the big market teams competing every year, some will say “look at tampa bay and at florida” they won and look at thier payroll, that only happens beacause you cant compete for so many years and get draft picks,
then once you can afford your team they all sign with the big market teams, its like other teams are farm clubs for the yankees and boston….and so on, once your player develops and is due for the money you lose him. look at florida and look at what tampa bay had to do this year
Its hard for other teams to draw fans , tv revenue, advertizing $ when you know you have little chance of winning each year.
every other sport has a salary cap, i believe baseball needs this. if this keeps up baseball will keep losing fans,
You for reals?
If I am a gm go ahead, pay 126 mil for werth, pay 146 mil for crawford, I will sign my guys to extensions until they are 32ish and get their best years, you can overpay and get 4-5 good years. esp if they are a pitcher I am happy to see you lay out that contract. As for everything else, read my post right below yours sorted by newest first.
The Royals may have more top prospects but that doesn’t mean they have some advantage that other teams can’t do. All teams have the opportunity to scout, draft, and develop amateur talent. All team. If all teams can do it, it isn’t an advantage.
There is no advantage to being a small market team.
There is an advantage to being a large market team.
IF there is no advantage, then how do small market teams win? I mean they dont have any advantage right? How come the yankees/sox/cubs/mets/dodgers/phillies arent winning 70% of the time?
Red sox and yankees get players in free agency. Most players enter free agency after or at the end of their prime. Go ahead, take them I Will do fine with what I have scouted and without hte pressure from fans of having to go out and buy everyone.
So what is the advantage to being a small market team?
Draft picks.
Every team has draft picks. If every team has it, it isn’t an advantage.
So, what is the advantage to being a small market team?
Compensation picks? Ever heard of those? Unprotected picks that get picked up? Draft order? Theres a reason why david price, strasburg/harper dont fall to the yankees, its because the yankees probably didnt have a pick in the first round!
Every team also has a first basemen, some are better. And please answer my above post.
Every team gets compensation picks if they lose premium free agents. Again, if every team gets them, they aren’t an advantage.
Draft order is determined by your record the previous year, not the size of the market. Unless you’re trying to say the size of your market ditates where you finish in the standings?
So, again, what is the advantage of being a small market team?
Every team gets them?!?! Actually only the teams that lose the free agents get them, so its available to every team, but not every team gets it…..
So do you honestly believe baseball does not have a level playing field? I mean really? With all the numbers I have thrown out about records, about champions you are still sticking with it being level because in theory you dont think it should be but in practice it actually is?
Excuse me, I mispoke. Every team CAN get them, including large market teams.
You’re right, 10 of the 30 compensation picks are going to the Yankees, White Sox, Red Sox, Phillies and Twins.
That doesn’t sound like something that is exclusive to being a small market team …
So again, what is the advangtage to being a small market team?
Their draft picks…..I didnt say big market teams NEVER get them, just that small market teams get more of them and thats an advantage. But ok, run your team with a 200mil payroll and buy everything and fail, see if I care.
I really dont know what else I can do to convince you that the playing field is level, numbers, statistics everything but you cannot grasp it.
I am done arguing with you. The fact that you keep coming back proves that you are just as angry and pathetic as me, have fun toiling in obscurity in the al east, not because you guys dont have money, or because you dont get good picks, but because your organization is just bad overall and cannot create a competitive team and whenever it tries to spend money it gives contracts to sosa/palmeiro/tejada. Enjoy.
I will not respond to anything else, I have said everything I care to say so I am done. If you really really want it to keep going, print off all my responses and keep making the same argument over and over because I have addressed everything you have brought to light so perhaps by rereading them 300 times and having an imaginary debate you will learn.
You don’t even understand what a level playing field is. Go reread the link I provided. Google “level playing field.” Something, because you aren’t grasping the basics.
Draft picks aren’t a small market advantage if every team gets them. Compensation picks aren’t a small market advantage if a third of the picks are going to six large market teams.
Your argument holds no water, so you’re right, you are done.
Check out this link that defines level playing field. A lot of our disagreement stems from your failure to understand the term.
http://www.businessdictionary dot com/definition/level-playing-field dot html
So, are NBA teams all operating under the same rules? Are MLB teams? So which one really has a level playing field?
The Twins really aren’t a small market as they support a payroll over 100 million.
The Rays? You just saw their team get dismantled because they couldn’t afford their players. If they had the ADVANTAGE of a large payroll, this would not have happened.
But the twins…they were small then gave out extensions..attracted…fans…….and….wow are you unable to comprehend anything outside the east?
And they got a ton of draft picks!
Yes, there is an advantage to being small market and its the draft picks!
You want to level the playing field, fine I am mad that you guys have showalter and we have leyland, GIVE ME HIM NOW!
Its sports! The playing field is as level as it will be the cap will not make as much of a difference as you seem to think.
Answer this question
IF there is no advantage, then how do small market teams win? I mean they dont have any advantage right? How come the yankees/sox/cubs/mets/dodgers/phillies arent winning 70% of the time?
How do small market teams win?I don’t know what kind of answer you’re looking for here?They build their farm system for years in the hopes that one day, that talent will develop into productive major league players. If it does, they add a few veteran pieces and hope they can win while their window of opportunity is still open. Ya know, before their core becomes too expensive (Garza) and/or leaves for bigger paychecks via free agency (Crawford, Pena, the entire bullpen …).Then they blow up the pieces and start again.This is hardly an advantage. If anything, you can call it an organizational strategy. Any team can employ these ideas though. As we’ve established, if every team can do something, they don’t have an advantage in that particular area.
So, getting players during the prime of their careers due to your advantages in scouting, because that is what your organization commits to therefore its typically better then other teams, is not an advantage at all? REally>!?!?! You are getting players at their best for a fraction of what they are worth and securing a future.
I am sure the rays are crying about losing relievers and getting a ton of draft picks. Thats an advantage!
As stated, where do you want your equal the playing field bs to stop? When every team is around .500? Draft after every season? Hey your first basement is better then mine gimme? Its sports! Different teams have different advantages, if you dont think the scouting and development team provides an advantage to teams then you are crazier then I thought.
Also come back to the real world. You here? probably not. But anyways take the yankees, yea they can buy the planet we know that but their fans expect them to win a ws every year and spend a ton of money to do it, even if its not wise. For instance they signed soriano and lost a draft pick, cashman did not want this and it probably wasnt the best move, but the owners knew the fans needed something after not winning. The big money teams tend to throw money around due to fan pressure to perform, the small market teams dont have that nopnstop scrutiny, heck torre was fired for not winning a ring and gardenhire is praised even though whens the last time he won a playoff series?!?!?! Point is, big market teams are required to spend money by the fans and sometimes that really screws them because of this win now mentality.
paul,i dont think you know what your talking about, your reasoning about draft pick is so short sighted, do you think the rays would prefer to keep there players instead of having to rebuild , do you think the Rays fan are jumping for joy the have all these draft picks. out of those draft pick a few will make it to the big, most draft picks never make it up, if they do and have a few good years and the Rays cant afford them they will leave to a big market team AGAIN,
even free agency is a feeding frenzy for the big market teams, they get all top talent with the small market teams pick through the scraps left over.
What rays fans?
I see a lot of text, but I don’t see an answer to my question regarding the Bears scenario.
Is that a level playing field?
(With the NFL salaries not being guaranteed, the Bears could just cut any player that is no longer product and do it all over again with new FA … )
You are trying to compare apples to oranges, and I said I would need to see the results play out and analyze it by a case by case basis, use baseball.
There’s a pretty obvious answer but you’re too stubborn to admit it.
It’s funny, when the NBA winning percentages seem convenient for your arguments, it’s apples to apples.
But when I use the NFL, it’s apples to oranges.
Now I know you are joking.
Comparing simple percentages based on games played to determine the disparity in competition is much easier then comparing the economics in both sports.
Do you know who jay cutler is? Denver sent him to the bears for a bunch of draft picks and some young talent. Denver had a bad year this year, but the bears had NO picks in the first 2 rounds last year! Denever had all their picks! Denver screwed up in drafting a qb, however they will be back and it will be with the young talent thanks to that trade, in fact EVERY sports person said that denver won that trade.
Also, there are examples in baseball about trades that better compare due to the economics. The only reason I could think of as to why you would go out of the very sport we are talking about is that you simply have no argument.
I was bringing the point back to baseball, but you wouldn’t admit the obvious that the Bears spending 250 million while the rest of the league is capped at 130 isn’t a level playing field. It obviously isn’t level.
Dollar amounts do not have to be level to have a level playing field, all you need is a disbursement of talent and as long as you still have that then the league can sustain itself(like mlb) even with teams spending way more.
To me, parity=level playing field and baseball has that.
Check out this link that defines level playing field. A lot of our disagreement stems from your failure to understand the term.
http://www.businessdictionary dot com/definition/level-playing-field dot html
So, are NBA teams all operating under the same rules? Are MLB teams? So which one really has a level playing field?
In reply to OrangeCards
Yes I am aware I am feeding the troll, but frankly you are so misguided and just will not let this go so this is my final post ironing out my points.
You are acting in this entire thing that spending a ton of money is a huge advantage, I have already shown you why that is not the case at all. It does help, however its a bandaid and will not last that long. For instance look at the Phillies farm system, its depleted! However they constantly have to spend money because that is what is expected of them.
Spending more money does NOT equal championships, and as much as you are talking about it it sounds like you are really believing this. Look at the giants, no big free agents played a role in their post season run, granted huff was a good FA addition but he came at a bargain bottom of the barrel price. The giants are built to win long term spending less, heck even the rays are still in a good position because of their sp!
You act as if money is a gigantic advantage and yes it is an advantage but it really isnt insurmountable and forcing the red sox to spend 30 mil less, and the mets to spend 20 mil really wont make a difference at all for anything.
You talk about leveling the playing field, however this is sports the playing field is never level. Your 1b is better then mine, your sp is better, you have an advantage here because you picked higher because you finished with a worse record. And you can say “EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO A 1B” but I can say everyone has access to money and a fanbase, therefore it is level you just dont capitalize on it. However I am not going to say that(although it makes sense from your point). However with your “everyone has access thing” I can say “I didnt have access to player x because you drafted him therefor you had an advantage picking over me”
Each team must utilize its advantages to win, money is a great asset to have but it alone does not buy you rings. You can talk about the yankees, but jeter/posada/pettitte/mo/cano were all home grown and played key roles in the ws. You build teams from within and fill out in FA.
My main point this whole time is that money is as much of an advantage as more draft picks because frankly it doesnt make that big of a difference and ends up costing your team in the long run. What team would you rather be in charge of right now for the next 3 years the yankees or rays? The rays, obviously. The yankees have given out gigantic contracts to sign FA and will be paying very very large amounts of money out to players well past their prime. That is what happens when you rely on free agency. Also you rarely get prime years, look at the cubs! FA is very very risky and can come at a cost, which makes throwing money around not as powerful.
I brought up the compensation picks to humor your theoretical world where small market teams cannot keep stars. So in your theoretical world compensation picks only help small market teams who cannot sign their type A/B free agents.
You can cry foul at the problems but look at the stats I threw out about records, is it really that bad? The talent is dispersed throughout the league and just about every time has a shot going into the season. You can say that about football and baseball, thats about it. Therefore, I think the whole spending thing is way overblown and your proposed cap will really not accomplish anything but cut player salaries.
So go ahead, cry about the big market red sox giving up 2 really good prospects and a high risk/reward guy for agon but it works out. The padres cannot support a payroll higher then 45 mil, ok lets say we do a better job of revenue sharing and it goes up to 60 mil, still they cannot sign agon. If there was a cap do you think they would have gotten those prospects? no way! So in the mlb world it actually works out, they get better prospects to fuel their team and the red sox get their guy. Again cry foul all you want, but the proof is in the pudding. Deals like this allow small market teams to be competitive through smart moves.
Money does help, but not as much as you make it out to be and your cap would really not accomplish anything.
I’m really not going to go in circles with you again if you can’t accept the basic definitions of “level playing field” and “advantage.”
Again, there is no advantage to being a small market team. Draft picks? Nope. Compensation picks? Nope.
A level playing field means teams are operating under the same basic rules; not parity in the league.
If you haven’t comprehended these concepts by now you’re just not that bright or more interested in “winning” the argument than thinking rationally about it.
Lol you are truly a lost cause, I put all the time into illustrating how money is not that big of an advantage and the disadvantages to going throw free agency(which would be an advantage to small market teams) but you fail to see that and believe that.
And yes in your world compensation picks would be an advantage because its something only the small market teams got.
Teams are still operating under the same rules, everyone has access to money based on their fanbase.
Again, the problem isnt as big as you seem to think given the parity 🙂
You didn’t dispute or answer any of my questions. You rambled on and on about things I’ve already told you aren’t true. You STILL don’t understand what the words “level playing field” and “advantage” mean.
A level playing field is independent of the results of a season. It simply means all teams are operating under the same basic rules. This isn’t happening in the MLB if you have one team spending multiples of the average team payroll. You can’t dispute this. It’s a fact. A few teams have the ability to spend 150+ million and the rest of the league doesn’t.
Compensation picks are NOT a small market advantage. Perhaps it would be if only the bottom ten markets COULD receive them, but this isn’t the case. In fact, 6 large market teams are getting 1/3 of the compensation picks this year. So, please, tell me how that is an advantage?
Baseball teams have always finished generally between .400 and .600. Look at the history of the league. It’s the nature of the game of baseball. This was the case well before free agency and these spending disparities existed.
Ok, you are obviously not serious at all and now I am really done. I thought if I laid it out nice for you you would take the time to read it, its obvious you didnt. However if I am wrong and you did read it I am truly distraught because that means you lack any type of reading skill and cannot comprehend anything. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply did not completely read it. I refuted everything you have already said, but here is it nice and small. Now I am done. Do not bring this up on other boards whenever I make a pathetic orioles joke about them signing roiders or why they would trade away an asset. I dont see you chime in when I make the same comments about the yankees/red sox or even my tigers. Only when I joke about orioles you take it personally and come at me with “der you cant read”. Whatever, read my other posts before you think its a personal attack on you, its possible I am just making fun of the team. Oh before you go all “YOU CORRECTED MY SPELLING” I corrected that guys use of your instead of you’re as well.
Things that arent true, right so the yankees arent bogged down with a lot of big contracts and neither are the cubs. Ok! Free agency isnt the best place to get talent, nope guess im wrong there too! Really? I mean really. Look at how championship teams are built man! Even the yankees dynasty wasnt built on FA it was built from within! Best way to get guys is through trades and draft picks and develop that talent so you dont have to pay 20 mil a year to a player in his mid to late 30s.
And like I said, sports are not level playing field, you have the first pick I have no 1st round picks. Thats not level, give me. Oh but we all have access to the first pick based on record, we also all have access to money based on a fan base to support the 150 mil, you just have to reach your fans. For instance Michigan is the worst state in the country in terms of unemployment rates and yet we still sell out games consistently and break 3 mil in attendance. The unemployment rate in detroit is around 30%, and in michigan overall its about 15%. If you reach out to the fans they will come. Oh dang did I just have to refute that AGAIN?
Like I said, in your world where small market teams cannot hold on to their players it is. You really didnt read what I typed in terms of compensation picks. In your world no small market team can hold on to their star, so their stars walk.
Right, which only further proves that the spending disparities do not create a competitive imbalance which is the main goal of any sports league, to make sure the vast majority of the teams can compete and its not a one sided league. Which hold on…also proves my point that its not that much of an advantage and is equivalent to getting the top pick in terms of advantages.
So if it aint broke why fix it.
You’re done because you know you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.
To pretend as though you weren’t the one that brought up the argument on the new thread is delusional at best and perhaps hints that you have more deeply seeded mental problems of which I cannot help you with on a message board.
But feel free to answer the question, smart guy; How are compensation picks an advantage of small market teams if six large market teams are getting 1/3 of the picks? In case you can’t do the math, the large market teams are getting a disproportionate amount of the picks.
Or what is level about a few teams spending multiples of the average team salary?
You still have no clue what the terms mean and it’s evident in everything you type.
(And please, don’t delude yourself into thinking your reading or logical reasoning skills are something to be lauded. They’re not and you’re fortunate I’m the only one still reading the drivel you’ve posted.)
“But feel free to answer the question, smart guy; How are compensation picks an advantage of small market teams if six large market teams are getting 1/3 of the picks? In case you can’t do the math, the large market teams are getting a disproportionate amount of the picks.”
Umm pretty sure I said that I was talking about your fictional world that you have created, not real baseball. Seriously. I said that 2 times.
And again, I didnt say it was level for team spending, I said it was NOT level and there is an uneven playing field in many aspects of the game but it all works out to good results and parity.
You have ignored just about eveyrthing else, in a court of law I would win because you ignored them which means you are admitting to them, the only things you have now are petty insults and misreading what I typed.
Have fun!
Oh, and I brought up an argument about orioles signing roiders, but ok thats related to small market spending. The other thing, you have more of a case but I was using your reasoning to answer your own question as to why any team would make that trade. But ok.
I didn’t say your Orioles and steroids comment was a jab at the other discussion, but you made SEVERAL other comments that obviously were. And then you tried to pretend as though I was the one who brought it up again. You’re seriously crazy, man.
Several? Really? I made what 4 comments total, only one would be small/big market comment. The rest were answering questions or making jokes. Wouldnt a team thats given up trade everything? Cliff Lee?
Fictional world that I have created? What in the world are you talking about? What drugs are you on / not on?
I asked you earlier what the advantage is to being a small market team. You responded with “draft picks.” I said that if everyone gets draft picks, and they do, then that isn’t a small market advantage. Your next reply was “compensation picks.” Again, if everyone gets them, it isn’t an advantage. And if the large markets are getting a disproportionate amount of them this year, it certainly isn’t an advantage to being a small market. So for the last time, what is the advantage to being a small market team?
Now you’re admitting it isn’t level playing field because of the spending disparity? It took awhile, but I guess you’ve finally figured out what the term means. If you acknowledge spending creates an uneven playing field, why not cap that spending at a relatively high figure so that a few teams can’t go crazy with their spending? This could easily include some type of addition revenue sharing system so that players salaries aren’t cut and other small market teams can afford to sign some reason FA talent, or keep their homegrown stars more easily.
I can’t help but laugh at your understanding of the legal system. I’ve answered numerous of your team specific questions before and wasn’t going to do it again. And can you get more hypocritical with the petty insults comment? I really wish the entire conversation were together so you could see the string of irrational arguments you have attempted.
Lol ive dropped the petty insults that ive started 🙂
As I have explained, the spending does not create as big of an advantage as you seem to think, as much as draft picks(said that 10 times) and cutting it down to 130 will not do anything. The league is fine. I am talking about baseball in general, I have never said spending was not an advantage, and if you want to equate that to level playing field then so be it. When I talk about level playing field I talk about ALL the advantages and disadvantages and balance them out. Not just one issue. However like draft picks, money is available to ALL TEAMS!
Draft picks are an advantage to teams that finish poorly, the rays have way way way more draft picks then the yankees however not because they finish poorly but because being a small market they couldnt resign their guys so they have a way way better farm system and will for years to come, heck the yankees dont pick in the first round, and I dont thinkt he red sox do either, although they might get the tigers unprotected pick unless it goes to the rays for crawford.
Dude, if in a complaint you fail to answer a question you are admitting to the question. This is pretrial. Its in the FRCP.
You dropped your petty insults? You are delusional kid. In your comment prior to accusing me of making petty insults, you did the exact same thing yourself. Hypocritical much?
And like I said, if the spending isn’t much of an advantage as you claim, what is the harm is capping it at a relatively high figure like 140 million? If that extra 30-70 million doesn’t mean much, why are you so insistent on the large markets maintaining this imbalance?
The Yankees gave up their first round pick but will get a compensation pick in the supplemental round for Javier Vasquez. The Red Soxs get a first rounder from both the Tigers and the Rangers. They also get two supplemental picks. Hard to argue that’s a small market advantage when the Sox have 4 picks before the second round.
And just because you’ve decided to alter the definition of level playing field to fit your argument doesn’t mean it’s true. You’ve argued over and over that MLB has one because teams finish between .400 and .600 when this has nothing to do with the term.
We’ve establish spending ability is the advantage of being a large market. So, what is the advantage to being a small market? (Hint: It’s not draft or compensation picks.)
LOL, I was unaware you thought your arguments were anything close to legal documentation. And when I go back and look and your “final” explanation of your argument, there really isn’t any questions that I can answer. There are only rhetorical ones in which you answered yourself in the following sentence.
I’ve got questions of my own that you’ve “admitted to” because you haven’t answered them.
1. What is the advantage to being a small market team?
2. If the extra 30-70 million the large markets spend doesn’t mean much as you claim, why are you so insistent that we maintain this imbalance? IE, if that spending doesn’t really matter, why is it necessary?
(I feel it makes a significant difference and would like to see it capped a bit)
I fail to see a petty insult, just facts about the orioles. I was seriously questioning if you had read my post, not your mental state.
1. Dude, come on really. I gave disadvantages to teams who only go to FA, that has to be an advantage for teams that done spend.
You can say draft picks arent an advantage, but they are I am sorry and holding onto prospects IS an advantage that big market teams do not have because they constantly need to spend and trade to keep up with the pressure of their fans. Just a different way to play the game. If picking first in the draft isnt an advantage, or having a ton of picks for finishing with the same record(as the rays do) then I really dont know what else I can give you. Farm system is an advantage to small market teams who keep their in tact instead of blowing it up to get a rental. HEck the yankees were going to send monetoro for a half season of lee but the marines backed out last minute. All of this has been stated.
2. Because it allows player salaries to grow and the offseason to be more trading and teams to play their style easier, whether it be getting a farm system or spending money. Why restrict one advantage and not the other? It will hurt the players more then help the game.
And again you have access to money, as to big market teams with draft picks, but like the money/picks one obviously has more, a more developed farm system, and more aging players on terrible contracts because they cashed in playing for small market teams then stink in their 30s.
Dude, level playing field I look at everything and it all balances out. You equate it to advantage only, balance out all the advantages. The small market teams can compete just as well because their farm systems are simply better and they have prospects coming up and lock up their talent long term. Milwakee is not a big market so they are locking up their good players long term and will get 2 first rounders for prince.
And yes I look at the final results all around the league and really dont see how there is a problem in how it is set up, especially when your beloved small market teams are pocketing the money instead of putting it towards competing.
I wont go into your theoretical world because it would require me to insult you, but one point would be when .700 to .300 is more even then .600 to .400.
I think what you are missing is the talent being spread out no matter what. Most teams are still competitive, the big market teams dont have all the talent, although they do have the most disappointments. If the big market teams were truly able to just keep buying all the best talent then you would have a point but frankly there were what 3 top tier players on the FA market this year? Thats if you count werth which I am hesistant to do. So You have 4 teams bidding for them, 3 for lee, because no team has that much in their farm due to trades they made for the big ticket fill so well you know what you can finish this analogy 🙂
1. You still don’t get what an advantage is. If every team is capable of doing it, it isn’t a advantage. What you describe are disadvantages to building a team based around free agents, not disadvantages to being a large market team. What you describe are advantages to building a team through the draft, not advantages to being a small market team. I understand your points there and I agree with them to a certain extend, but any team can build through the draft and therefor it is NOT an advantage that is privy to certain teams. Spending 150+ million is.
One thing you’ve ignored is that the Yanks and Sox both have top farm systems. Boston has been in the top 5 in draft spending despite picking in the bottom of the draft each year. It sounds like they have plenty of access to premium talent because of their ability to spend on over slot picks that smaller markets can’t afford to draft. The Yankees and Sox have each poured over 100 million into international talent the last decade while several small market teams haven’t approached 20 million. Again, the rich get richer …
2. A cap wouldn’t kill the off season as you’d like to pretend. Actually, if more teams were able to pay a player like Agon, the Padres may have received a better package.
I said that if you were to create a cap it could also include more revenue sharing so that player salaries aren’t cut. You choose to ignore this point as usual …
And you’re smoking some good stuff if you’re going to try to tell me that the Rays would rather have 2 picks than keep CC. You’re delusional if you think the Brewers are likely to get a comparable talent to Prince with their two picks.
You mention owners pocketing their money instead of spending it on players but you also argue that spending doesn’t help all that much. So which is it?
The Rays, as phenomenal as they draft and develop players, aren’t expected to win the division this year solely because they couldn’t afford to keep any of their stars. Sure, they’ll get draft picks and come back at some point in the future, but the Yanks and Red Sox will go back to dominating the division in the mean time.
“You still don’t get what an advantage is. If every team is capable of doing it, it isn’t a advantage”
You are correct, every team can get draft picks, every team can also spend money. So by that definition neither is an advantage. By MY definition BOTH are advantages because of the quality and quantity. Are both advantages impossible for the teams to access?? NO! fans..money…build up…twins as example…
The ONLY advantage large market teams have is spending, where is that apparent? FREE AGENCY! TEAMS THAT ONLY GO TO FREE AGENCY ARE SCREWED! Dang man really? Teams that trade away their prospects are SCREWED which is what big market teams typically do! Look at the phillies!
Does anything except for signings happen in the offseason? Maybe? umm lets see hold on…let me…wait…starts with a T…drawing a blank. Guess its all that junk ive been smoking.
Kei Igawa, dice k….Yankees top farm system? Really? THey didnt have enough to meet the high demands for lee/halladay or anyone else they got. They have some good prospects in A ball, but I betcha they will be traded and the majority will not play in the majors.
Again with the petty insults, for your information I have never smoked anything aside from a cigar. I will be honest, I skimmed that post, the first line was just so out there that it is obvious you will never budge one inch no matter what.
I am done. Period. I will continue to make yankees/tigers/red sox/angels/orioles jokes no matter what.
No, money isn’t an advantage for all teams. No matter what the Rays do over the next decade, they cannot create a local fan base 8 million strong. They can’t create the revenue streams of the YES network over night. Only you would pretend this is possible.
You can make all the jokes you’d like. But when you answer something completely out of context, you’ll get blasted for it if you’re trying to troll my posts. And if you want to make obvious references to this discussion, I’ll tell you the same thing I said before.
“No, money isn’t an advantage for all teams. No matter what the Rays do over the next decade, they cannot create a local fan base 8 million strong. They can’t create the revenue streams of the YES network over night. Only you would pretend this is possible.” Lol they said the same thing about the twins, only worse they were gonna be contracted 🙂 Cannot is a word you need to eliminate, it tends to be an absolute term.
Completely out of context? Roiders signign with the orioles? Why teams sell off their starters? Why the yankees have a 200 mil payroll and 1 starter? Ok, guess those were all out of context.
Sorry, that was what the 4th time I said I would stop? Although in this post I dont directly attack the salary cap, more or less you dismissing teams from growing revenue and a fan base. Its possible man, make the postseason a few times and maybe the orioles will do the same!