|
Post by aztecryan on Jan 15, 2012 10:01:02 GMT -8
This is the same story as last year, when the owners did the same thing to the Astros. Just being prudent.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 16, 2012 23:41:34 GMT -8
There will never be a salary cap in baseball because the big market teams will not allow it. They'll pay the luxury taxes and what not, but the status quo will remain. There are two ways to look at it. More payroll equals more responsibility. Like I said above, the Giants will be paying Barry Zito millions of dollars for the next bazillion years. The Marlins paid Jose Reyes about a trillion dollars this offseason, they still won't finish above third in their own division. If added payroll means greater exposure of foolish contracts, count me out. I KNOW payroll will increase gradually, it's just going to take patience. This team is really built to compete probably in 2 seasons. Building from within is the right way to go. Oh, and at least we're not the Pittsburgh Pirates, right? I think there is another reason there will never be a salary cap in baseball--if there is a cap, there would probably also be a salary floor, and I think that is the reason that Moorad has said he would be against a salary cap. That salary floor would probably be at a level that would be too high for the small market (or low payroll) teams to want to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jan 17, 2012 6:44:20 GMT -8
There will never be a salary cap in baseball because the big market teams will not allow it. They'll pay the luxury taxes and what not, but the status quo will remain. There are two ways to look at it. More payroll equals more responsibility. Like I said above, the Giants will be paying Barry Zito millions of dollars for the next bazillion years. The Marlins paid Jose Reyes about a trillion dollars this offseason, they still won't finish above third in their own division. If added payroll means greater exposure of foolish contracts, count me out. I KNOW payroll will increase gradually, it's just going to take patience. This team is really built to compete probably in 2 seasons. Building from within is the right way to go. Oh, and at least we're not the Pittsburgh Pirates, right? I think there is another reason there will never be a salary cap in baseball--if there is a cap, there would probably also be a salary floor, and I think that is the reason that Moorad has said he would be against a salary cap. That salary floor would probably be at a level that would be too high for the small market (or low payroll) teams to want to deal with. Not if the revenue sharing became substantial. If you set a $50 Million salary floor that's doable for EVERY team in the league. Even a $60 Million floor would work with increased revenue sharing. It's a joke that some teams can spend $200 Million while others just spend $50 Million. That makes for a competitively unbalanced league, which is zero fun to watch. The same teams compete for the playoffs every year because they buy the best players available, while the little guys fight to get into the mix once or twice a decade. That's not a legitimate sports league.
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jan 17, 2012 10:32:37 GMT -8
I think there is another reason there will never be a salary cap in baseball--if there is a cap, there would probably also be a salary floor, and I think that is the reason that Moorad has said he would be against a salary cap. That salary floor would probably be at a level that would be too high for the small market (or low payroll) teams to want to deal with. Not if the revenue sharing became substantial. If you set a $50 Million salary floor that's doable for EVERY team in the league. Even a $60 Million floor would work with increased revenue sharing. It's a joke that some teams can spend $200 Million while others just spend $50 Million. That makes for a competitively unbalanced league, which is zero fun to watch. The same teams compete for the playoffs every year because they buy the best players available, while the little guys fight to get into the mix once or twice a decade. That's not a legitimate sports league. Question for you. Does Century Link share profits and distribute them to Qwest? Or, do they buyout Qwest instead? They don't share profits, they buy out Qwest and move on to their next project. Why do you expect MLB not to follow that same business rule? If you where an owner of a team wouldn't you do all that you could to ensure your team can win? It seems funny to me, in my opinion, to watch you on here try to legislate how sports owners money (meaning MLB owners in this case) is spent to be "fair" because your team is not competitive. While in real life you don't want anyone telling private citizens, or you, how to spend theirs/yours. I just find that a bit ironic. ;D ***edit*** Confused you with AztecWilliam my apologies.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jan 17, 2012 19:33:58 GMT -8
Not if the revenue sharing became substantial. If you set a $50 Million salary floor that's doable for EVERY team in the league. Even a $60 Million floor would work with increased revenue sharing. It's a joke that some teams can spend $200 Million while others just spend $50 Million. That makes for a competitively unbalanced league, which is zero fun to watch. The same teams compete for the playoffs every year because they buy the best players available, while the little guys fight to get into the mix once or twice a decade. That's not a legitimate sports league. Question for you. Does Century Link share profits and distribute them to Qwest? Or, do they buyout Qwest instead? They don't share profits, they buy out Qwest and move on to their next project. Why do you expect MLB not to follow that same business rule? If you where an owner of a team wouldn't you do all that you could to ensure your team can win? It seems funny to me, in my opinion, to watch you on here try to legislate how sports owners money (meaning MLB owners in this case) is spent to be "fair" because your team is not competitive. While in real life you don't want anyone telling private citizens, or you, how to spend theirs/yours. I just find that a bit ironic. ;D ***edit*** Confused you with AztecWilliam my apologies. MLB is NOT a normal business, and any comparison to such is sheer ridiculousness. It's supposed to be ONE business with a bunch of independently owned branch offices. They are supposed to compete with each other for the best office results at the end of the year, but to be fairly compared they have to have relatively equal resources. This is SPORTS not competitive business. It IS a businees - MLB being the business. If an owner is buying a team to turn a profit first then that owner has no business being in the league. WINNING is supposed to come first. Win and you will turn a profit. All the ancillary stuff increases exponentially when you win.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 17, 2012 23:09:34 GMT -8
I think there is another reason there will never be a salary cap in baseball--if there is a cap, there would probably also be a salary floor, and I think that is the reason that Moorad has said he would be against a salary cap. That salary floor would probably be at a level that would be too high for the small market (or low payroll) teams to want to deal with. Not if the revenue sharing became substantial. If you set a $50 Million salary floor that's doable for EVERY team in the league. Even a $60 Million floor would work with increased revenue sharing. It's a joke that some teams can spend $200 Million while others just spend $50 Million. That makes for a competitively unbalanced league, which is zero fun to watch. The same teams compete for the playoffs every year because they buy the best players available, while the little guys fight to get into the mix once or twice a decade. That's not a legitimate sports league. I don't think your $$ amounts for a salary floor are high enough. Also, I think if there is ever going to be a cap, the cap and floor will be much closer together. That being said, baseball will more than likely never have a cap, because they will never have a strong commissioner, a la the NFL. Pete Rozelle got the team owners to pool their revenue years ago, and with the amount they now receive each year before the season begins, the NFL owners only concern is HOW MUCH of a profit they will make each season. In many ways, baseball is clueless, and the owners only have themselves to blame.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jan 18, 2012 6:57:35 GMT -8
Not if the revenue sharing became substantial. If you set a $50 Million salary floor that's doable for EVERY team in the league. Even a $60 Million floor would work with increased revenue sharing. It's a joke that some teams can spend $200 Million while others just spend $50 Million. That makes for a competitively unbalanced league, which is zero fun to watch. The same teams compete for the playoffs every year because they buy the best players available, while the little guys fight to get into the mix once or twice a decade. That's not a legitimate sports league. I don't think your $$ amounts for a salary floor are high enough. Also, I think if there is ever going to be a cap, the cap and floor will be much closer together. That being said, baseball will more than likely never have a cap, because they will never have a strong commissioner, a la the NFL. Pete Rozelle got the team owners to pool their revenue years ago, and with the amount they now receive each year before the season begins, the NFL owners only concern is HOW MUCH of a profit they will make each season. In many ways, baseball is clueless, and the owners only have themselves to blame. And that's why I am no longer a fan of MLB. It's not a legitimate league in the way that the NFL is. It's like a league run by the mob so the top guys stay on top. I can't and won't support that. And I have to wonder if Troy Aikman is still part of this ownership group. I remember them touting his involvement, but I haven't heard anything about him over the last couple of years. I can't imagine a competitor like that would want to own a team that has no chance of ever winning a championship.
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jan 18, 2012 9:45:47 GMT -8
[/quote] MLB is NOT a normal business, and any comparison to such is sheer ridiculousness. It's supposed to be ONE business with a bunch of independently owned branch offices. They are supposed to compete with each other for the best office results at the end of the year, but to be fairly compared they have to have relatively equal resources. This is SPORTS not competitive business. It IS a businees - MLB being the business. If an owner is buying a team to turn a profit first then that owner has no business being in the league. WINNING is supposed to come first. Win and you will turn a profit. All the ancillary stuff increases exponentially when you win.[/quote] Right...Tell that to the owners. All the owners are very successful in business, or they wouldn't be in a position to buy a MLB franchise. They've made much money in business and try to bring some of those principles to their teams. This isn't Dunder Mifflin for gosh sakes. These teams are not "branch offices" as you say. They are part of a competitive league, striving to make money while competing for championships at the same time. They aren't out there trying to sell more widgets than the others so they can win a trip to Cabo. They are competing for championships and dollars. There are more than one model of success for competing and winning championships. TB of recent is one example of how to compete in today's scenario. We should, and it looks like we might be, implementing some of their ideas on how to run a small market team. I get your "spend money to make money" sentiment, I do. I'm just saying there are different models of achieving success. I think Moorad is being penalized for the past 42 years of Padres baseball. I can't remember ever spending as much on draft picks as we have in the past two years in the Padres history. Ever. Owners don't come in to MLB with the intent of spending all of their own money on the club they purchase. They expect to have some profit that can be put back into the team. The problem is the population and demographic of each and every MLB city. I just find it hard to penalize the Yankees or Red Sox for having the resources to create things such as TV Networks of their own. Or sell more jerseys than the rest, or whatever other revenue source they create to bring in more money. That's just life, plain and simple. Who doesn't want to dominate whatever endeavor they're taking on? I agree we must make a product on the field that people want to see, that people want to buy merchandise from. I find it remarkable that any owner would want to buy the Padres or any other small market team to be quite honest with you with all the issues of revenue streams they face. With that being said, I don't blame those owners for wanting the city there team resides in want to be part of the solution as well. They can do that buy purchasing tickets to games, buying merchandise from the different outlets such as team stores and others. I realize it's a vicious cycle of win and they will come, but put money into the team first, etc... Our new (if it ever gets done) TV deal while doubling or maybe even 2.5 times more than the old one we had pales in comparison to other bigger market teams TV contract. That's the market. It is what it is. Again, nothing in sports, as in life is fair. That to me is what makes sports and winning a championship so special. This is a lame example and I apologize for it upfront, but, without the inequity of sports, stories like Hoosiers and the like wouldn't be told. That's my take.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jan 18, 2012 10:14:10 GMT -8
The NFL has a nearly level playing field.
It can be done - IF the owners are smart and don't let the league be run by the top 10 revenue teams.
MLB is stupid. The commissioner is stupid, the owners are stupid, and many of the fans are stupid. The league has evolved into something closer to the WWE than the NFL in terms of true competition. It's a joke.
Back in the 80's the Padres could compete for the same free agents as everyone else. In the 90's the Padres (after the swap meet) were able to compete for players and had a PHENOMENAL roster that took them to the World Series.
That will never, ever happen again until the league makes sure that the playing field is more even than it is now. The NFL does it. MLB could, too.
Imagine the NFL where the fans knew damned well that no matter how smart their GM was their team had ZERO chance of ever making it to the Super Bowl going forward. That's where Padres fans are now.
And that's why I'm not a fan. I hate MLB. It's a joke.
(And I don't care how good our farm system is - when the team continues to trade off players as soon as they have a good year or two there will be no continuity, no core to build around, and NO World Series championships. So whether or not the team is paying draft picks doesn't matter. They need to keep paying those guys once they develop into Major League talent. They won't.)
|
|