ROCKET said:
Thunderlips said:
ROCKET said:
NFL parity is generally a good thing; although the league needs a couple of Dynasty style teams to create stories/rivalries etc.etc. Where I think the NFL is hurting is in this changing of the rules so much towards offense and the passing game that it could make a certain number of teams irrelevant in any given season just because they don't have a big time QB....
Baseball has it over football in the sense that there's more than one way to win a Division/Conference/Championship. The evolution of the NFL is making it harder to win with just a powerhouse running game or stalwart D.....or even maybe a combination of the two. I'd hate to see the NFL reach NBA status; where you ABSOLUTELY NEED a stud at the QB position to have a legit shot at the championship.
I see your point, it is the only sport where you can outspend your opponents to acquire talent which gives teams another way of winning a title.
It's pretty much the only sport that has an extensive draft and minor league system that gives teams another way of winning a title as well.
It's far from the only sport that gives a team the ability to build thru the draft. The importance of draft position in the NBA far outweighs MLB. The difference in MLB is even if a small market team manages to draft a stud player they won't be able to keep them long term as they don't have the ability to resign them. They will have a two or three year window at best if all the stars align for them and then they will be bottom dwellers for the next decade or two. Meanwhile the big market teams will always be in the hunt as they have the ability to replace talent at will.The arguement isn't if a small market team can compete for a short period if they hit on some draft picks and a few cheap free agents, they can. The problem is teams with 4/5/6/7? times the payroll have a huge advantage, will be perrenial contenders decade after decade and don't have to be so shrewd or fortunate. The system at it's core is a joke and a floor/cap are the only soultion for long term parity. Tell me there isn't a correlation with long term success and the ability to spend money. How many times in the last twenty years has the top spending team (NYY) made the playoffs and how many times has the lowest payroll team made it? Case closed.
No other sports draft or minor league system is as extensive as MLBs. It's a system that enables teams not wanting to spend money on higher profile FA's to compete. Teams like the A's, the Marlins and the Rays continually work that system to their advantage. Draft well, bring a player along in their minor league system until they are ready....bring them up at the right time to maximize their MLB contract, let them play a few years and then either extend their contract (usually before they're able to reach FA as a cost control means) or let them walk...thus getting more draft picks and perpetuating their system.
Cracking down on steroids has reduced the effectiveness of signing a Free Agent to long term deals as now...a player peaks in his early 30s and is pretty much finished by their late 30s. You bring up the Yankees as if their doling out big money to A-Rod, Texiera and Sabathia was a good thing. Take a look at them in a couple of years (or now as I'm sure a lot of MLB fans would say) and tell me if the 80 million those three guys are getting is worth it. The idea of throwing money against the wall and seeing if it sticks hasn't been working lately as the level of talent to throw money at is slowing down...
A lot of that being because more and more smaller market teams are getting money from the bigger market teams either directly (luxury tax) or indirectly(increase in national broadcasting contracts AND the implementation of regional sports newtorks). Now....it's more possible than ever for a team to keep their most important homegrown talent for more or less the entire length of their productive and prime years. 10 years ago, the Pirates probably don't get to extend Andrew McCutchen thru age 31. Now they can. I know some (maybe yourself) will complain if/when the Yankees sign McCutchen to a 10 year 350 million dollar deal when he becomes a free agent at 32......but believe me, that ain't a good thing. The MLB field is more level than those who critique it will give credit. Most teams choose to not spend money; at times not even re-investing the luxury tax they receive to help them be competitive back into the team.
You cited one player a team kept. How are they going to keep the same amount of talent with a payroll that isn't even 25% of teams like the Dodgers orNYY. And let me guess, the latest phenom Japanese pitcher Tanaka is going to a big market team as well. Why doesn't a small market team ever get to sign one of those highly touted superstars from overseas? Oh that's right they can't and will have to build from within their farm system with their top draft picks they receive from finishing at the bottom for a decade or so.If you want to believe the current system is equitable as teams like NY are in the playoffs 95% of the time for the next twenty years then knock yourself out. Why should small market teams have to play by a different set of rules to build a team? Make them spend or eliminate them if there isn't enough revenue to support a team in that city and for the love of God put a reasonable cap on the big market teams so they can compete with them. Did you ever think these small market teams might actually make a lot more revenue if they were on a level playing field and could compete. Are you seriously denying that there wouldn't be more competitiveness with a floor/cap like every other league in the country has?
Baseball was a hell of a lot better back in the 60's, 70's and early 80's before the advent of free agency and huge payrolls ruined it.
Sure.....I think there should be more of a floor and more restrictive luxury tax......although I'm not going to fault a team who willingly puts more financial resources in building a minor league infrastructure that continually churns out successful younger players instead of continually overpaying for an established free agent. Teams like the Rays went for the old "spend everything" route...and realized that it was smarter and cheaper to develop young talent. I don't think in the end a hard cap is neccessary as it's already been established in this thread that baseball has been competitive in relation to the other leagues with caps. The nature of the sport, the minor leagues, the extent of the draft and guaranteed contracts all act as a buffer against simply buying success. In addition, pretty much every franchise is FINALLY coming around to what initially gave the Yankees such a huge payroll advantage in the early 2000s; that being new television contracts and the establishment of a Regional Sports Network.
I also think that there's this wrong idea that it's only the top couple of teams that can buy whomever they want to. I'd argue that teams willing to spend about 85-90 million can more or less do what they want in regards to payroll; with only extenuating circumstances derailing them. In 2013, that's over half the teams in baseball. You talk about the Yankees.....but the Yankees greatest success came from when they lowered payroll, built a farm system that churned out Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettie and Jorge Posada and made due with cheap veteran talent like Cecil Fielder, Doc Gooden and Chili Davis. The only success they had in the "big payroll" years came in 2009....and in all probablity...they're going to be paying for that Series with overpaid and underachieving teams for the next 5 years.
Most of the teams in the bottom of the MLB payroll scale willingly have gone that low for whatever reasons that may be, with the low teams typically cycling out within a few years as they build their team. The Houston Astros are 80 million lower in their 2013 payroll than their 2009 one. Has Houston all of a sudden become a "small market"? ...or has the team made a concious effort to "reset" and become more fiscally responsible while building towards respectability? The Marlins were 90 million lower from 2013 to 2012!!!
And if we're being honest here......it's not even like the NFL has had legit payroll competitiveness until last year. Go back and look at the spending from year to year. The differences between the haves and the have-nots have flucuated as high as 50/60/70 million from year to year. That's not exactly the idealistic "everyone's the same" situation that NFL supporters and MLB detractors propose.
