|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 22:08:17 GMT -8
Uh, what? You never hear about it? Oakland? Pittsburgh? Cincinnati? Detroit? Just to name a few. Detroit's entire playoff roster of 26 guys totaled less just over $18M. There's no real floor and no mechanism to punish teams that are reaping in record revenues yearly. I'm talking NFL. The salary floor isn't really needed in the NFL because of revenue sharing. The GM's will spend money to be competitive so they don't get fired! But the league has a floor that no one violates because they have the money to spend and no one wants to get fired for losing. It's a completely different sport with 53 players on an active roster, non-guaranteed contracts, a different schedule, a different playoff format....there's no comparison. Useless. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 12, 2024 22:12:39 GMT -8
Ah---but there IS a salary floor, and a little research would have told you that. And I did the research. The salary floor is somewhat flexible, and you never, ever hear about a team not spending enough to hit those numbers. Revenue sharing and a reasonable salary cap makes it work. And if you have greater revenue sharing in MLB and institute a salary cap it won't be hard to include the floor as part of that deal. Going on about a salary floor is a non-issue. It would be part of the same deal to make the cap palatable to the players union. As it stands now there are several teams who have losing records far more often than they have winning records, and NONE of them are in major markets. ALL of them are in small or smaller mid markets. They can't keep their own best players when they develop them, and they can't replace those players they lose with equivalent talent because the equivalent talent can get paid a lot more in the major markets. It's a crappy system, and those that defend it are just myopic. The system does not work. It is broken. The system as it stands now leaves about 10 teams in the position of only contending 1 or 2 years out of every 10. That's not right. Their fanbases are tiny because people get tired of watching their teams lose and have no chance at making the playoffs year in and year out.  So...first you say there isn't a floor, but now you admit there is. Nice argument. With yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 22:18:48 GMT -8
Uh, what? You never hear about it? Oakland? Pittsburgh? Cincinnati? Detroit? Just to name a few. Detroit's entire playoff roster of 26 guys totaled less just over $18M. There's no real floor and no mechanism to punish teams that are reaping in record revenues yearly. I'm talking NFL. The salary floor isn't really needed in the NFL because of revenue sharing. The GM's will spend money to be competitive so they don't get fired! But the league has a floor that no one violates because they have the money to spend and no one wants to get fired for losing. The "system" isn't the problem. The commissioner works for the owners and there's no crackdown on their refusal to spend, since the guy who runs the league is appointed by said owners. Ironically, Peter Seidler was headlining a small group of owners that were going to vote against Oakland's relocation. When he died, Manfred was able to strong-arm that group into voting for the A's to move. You're never going to have true competitive equity in a 162 game schedule with 30 different franchises that have different corporate interests that don't always involve winning. That's not a "system"....it's just greed. Baseball has given every franchise money, whether it's revenue sharing, the sale of BAMTECH by Disney or other handouts. The Rockies will never be competitive, for example, given their owner is an idiot and their geographical concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 22:41:41 GMT -8
And I did the research. The salary floor is somewhat flexible, and you never, ever hear about a team not spending enough to hit those numbers. Revenue sharing and a reasonable salary cap makes it work. And if you have greater revenue sharing in MLB and institute a salary cap it won't be hard to include the floor as part of that deal. Going on about a salary floor is a non-issue. It would be part of the same deal to make the cap palatable to the players union. As it stands now there are several teams who have losing records far more often than they have winning records, and NONE of them are in major markets. ALL of them are in small or smaller mid markets. They can't keep their own best players when they develop them, and they can't replace those players they lose with equivalent talent because the equivalent talent can get paid a lot more in the major markets. It's a crappy system, and those that defend it are just myopic. The system does not work. It is broken. The system as it stands now leaves about 10 teams in the position of only contending 1 or 2 years out of every 10. That's not right. Their fanbases are tiny because people get tired of watching their teams lose and have no chance at making the playoffs year in and year out. So...first you say there isn't a floor, but now you admit there is. Nice argument. With yourself. My point was no one ever mentions the NFL salary floor because it's never an issue - no team breaks that rule because they all want to win and pay close to the cap every year. There may be a year or two where they don't as they're going with younger talent, but because the NFL has equitable revenue sharing each team has roughly the same money to spend on players, and they do. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 22:45:44 GMT -8
So...first you say there isn't a floor, but now you admit there is. Nice argument. With yourself. My point was no one ever mentions the NFL salary floor because it's never an issue - no team breaks that rule because they all want to win and pay close to the cap every year. There may be a year or two where they don't as they're going with younger talent, but because the NFL has equitable revenue sharing each team has roughly the same money to spend on players, and they do. It's a completely different sport with a completely different model. It's a worthless comparison that has no application to baseball in the slightest. Baseball will never have a salary cap, the players vote against it every single time a new CBA is ratified. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 12, 2024 22:50:09 GMT -8
So...first you say there isn't a floor, but now you admit there is. Nice argument. With yourself. My point was no one ever mentions the NFL salary floor because it's never an issue - no team breaks that rule because they all want to win and pay close to the cap every year. There may be a year or two where they don't as they're going with younger talent, but because the NFL has equitable revenue sharing each team has roughly the same money to spend on players, and they do. Yes, they are close to the cap every year since they have to be, based on the salary floor that you said earlier that they didn't have. Carry on... |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 22:55:13 GMT -8
My point was no one ever mentions the NFL salary floor because it's never an issue - no team breaks that rule because they all want to win and pay close to the cap every year. There may be a year or two where they don't as they're going with younger talent, but because the NFL has equitable revenue sharing each team has roughly the same money to spend on players, and they do. It's a completely different sport with a completely different model. It's a worthless comparison that has no application to baseball in the slightest. Baseball will never have a salary cap, the players vote against it every single time a new CBA is ratified. You're right, and that's why MLB is a joke compared to the NFL. The NFL values ALL of it's teams. They want parity. They want every team to have a shot at competing every year. MLB is fine with small/mid market teams being a joke, competitively, 8 out of every 10 years. They have no problem with that whatsoever since it gives more wins to the big market teams and helps get them into the playoffs. Again, it is much easier to build a perennial playoff team when you can spend over $250 Million annually in player salary. You can fill holes with better talent, and if you make a mistake it's easier to correct it with a later trade or free agent acquisition. Why do you think that the teams with the worst overall record over the last 20 years are ALL small/mid market teams, and the teams with the best overall record over the last 20 years are ALL big market teams? If you can't see how money absolutely IS a major factor in building perennial winners then you're deluding yourself. Money is not the ONLY thing, but it is a BIG thing. It gives the major market teams an unfair advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 12, 2024 22:59:07 GMT -8
My point was no one ever mentions the NFL salary floor because it's never an issue - no team breaks that rule because they all want to win and pay close to the cap every year. There may be a year or two where they don't as they're going with younger talent, but because the NFL has equitable revenue sharing each team has roughly the same money to spend on players, and they do. Yes, they are close to the cap every year since they have to be, based on the salary floor that you said earlier that they didn't have. Carry on... The salary floor is flexible. You can violate it for several years without penalty as long as you spend up to the cap later on. And yet teams still almost never go below that floor, even though they could. NFL teams have true revenue sharing and their owners actually want to win. MLB allows owners who are basically speculators who are looking to flip the team in 10 or 15 years and triple their money. It's just a different culture and a different priority of league management. The NFL wants parity. MLB wants the big markets to be in the playoffs every year. MLB as a league likes having crappy small market teams that are sacrificial lambs for the big market teams (and they especially like that the small market teams are basically AAAA teams for the big boys). |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 12, 2024 23:27:17 GMT -8
It's a completely different sport with a completely different model. It's a worthless comparison that has no application to baseball in the slightest. Baseball will never have a salary cap, the players vote against it every single time a new CBA is ratified. You're right, and that's why MLB is a joke compared to the NFL. The NFL values ALL of it's teams. They want parity. They want every team to have a shot at competing every year. MLB is fine with small/mid market teams being a joke, competitively, 8 out of every 10 years. They have no problem with that whatsoever since it gives more wins to the big market teams and helps get them into the playoffs. Again, it is much easier to build a perennial playoff team when you can spend over $250 Million annually in player salary. You can fill holes with better talent, and if you make a mistake it's easier to correct it with a later trade or free agent acquisition. Why do you think that the teams with the worst overall record over the last 20 years are ALL small/mid market teams, and the teams with the best overall record over the last 20 years are ALL big market teams? If you can't see how money absolutely IS a major factor in building perennial winners then you're deluding yourself. Money is not the ONLY thing, but it is a BIG thing. It gives the major market teams an unfair advantage. Every owner could spend in excess of $100M to create a competitive payroll. They don't. It's not the system. This act is tired. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 13, 2024 9:42:28 GMT -8
Yes, they are close to the cap every year since they have to be, based on the salary floor that you said earlier that they didn't have. Carry on... The salary floor is flexible. You can violate it for several years without penalty as long as you spend up to the cap later on. And yet teams still almost never go below that floor, even though they could. NFL teams have true revenue sharing and their owners actually want to win. MLB allows owners who are basically speculators who are looking to flip the team in 10 or 15 years and triple their money. It's just a different culture and a different priority of league management. The NFL wants parity. MLB wants the big markets to be in the playoffs every year. MLB as a league likes having crappy small market teams that are sacrificial lambs for the big market teams (and they especially like that the small market teams are basically AAAA teams for the big boys). Keep trying. This is very entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 13, 2024 10:40:39 GMT -8
In news that actually matters: The most important free agent signing of the offseason isn't a player: It's Ruben Niebla, who isn't under contract for next season at this point in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 13, 2024 10:49:20 GMT -8
In news that actually matters: The most important free agent signing of the offseason isn't a player: It's Ruben Niebla, who isn't under contract for next season at this point in time. Damn. He's not under contract? Better get him a raise ASAP and give him a 4 or 5 year deal. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 13, 2024 10:52:16 GMT -8
In news that actually matters: The most important free agent signing of the offseason isn't a player: It's Ruben Niebla, who isn't under contract for next season at this point in time. Damn. He's not under contract? Better get him a raise ASAP and give him a 4 or 5 year deal. I'm not privy to the contract negotiations, but I'd be extremely surprised if the Padres didn't retain him. |
|
|
|
Post by junior on Oct 13, 2024 11:46:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 13, 2024 13:59:28 GMT -8
It depends on which column you highlight on Spotrac, as another part of their site shows the total Padres payroll, used to determine just how close a team is to the luxury tax threshold, has the Padres at a total of $228,659,397--only $8,340,603 below the luxury tax threshold. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 13, 2024 16:07:49 GMT -8
So every single team from 7-14 missed the playoffs? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 13, 2024 16:09:38 GMT -8
It depends on which column you highlight on Spotrac, as another part of their site shows the total Padres payroll, used to determine just how close a team is to the luxury tax threshold, has the Padres at a total of $228,659,397--only $8,340,603 below the luxury tax threshold. Doesn't really change the overall structure much, just includes the pension benefits and other allocations. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Oct 14, 2024 8:42:10 GMT -8
Ah well, the Padres gave it the old San Diego try.
That being said, I was very excited to see Jackson Merrill step into the lineup and hit like he belonged in the majors.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 14, 2024 12:42:34 GMT -8
Mets having no issues with the Dodger bullpen plan, granted Landon Knack isn't a regular bullpen arm.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 14, 2024 12:57:49 GMT -8
Mets spanking the Doyers 6-0. Love it.
|
|
