This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yes, the Tigers will buy them all front row seats.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Unreal.
There will never be contraction... The players association won't allow it...
That wouldn't necessarily be the hurdle. I understand you lose the high end salaried guys, but you could expand the rosters to 26 or 27 and offset the loss of jobs. I simply don't think the major league teams want to shell out 3-400 million it would cost to buy and contract these squads, though it looks clear, that would be the way to go right now.
Since 1997, Yankess titles 3, Marlins titles 2. I'm not saying I agree with the Marlins philosophy, but they have more titles in recent years than a lot of teams spending way more money.Sure will be fun to see 2,000 show up on opening day. People who ##### about Steinbrenner ruining the integrity of the game by spending so much for players can always root for the Marlins now.
if he isnt their ace heading into the season I dont know who is. But remember im no baseball junkyALso the payroll thing is a joke.
Miller will undoubtedly be in their opening day rotation.
They've won more World Series than the Yankees in the last 6 years.
Scott Olsen
I'm pretty sure the 1st WS they won they had the highest payroll in baseball full of high dollar free agent signings.Since 1997, Yankess titles 3, Marlins titles 2. I'm not saying I agree with the Marlins philosophy, but they have more titles in recent years than a lot of teams spending way more money.Sure will be fun to see 2,000 show up on opening day. People who ##### about Steinbrenner ruining the integrity of the game by spending so much for players can always root for the Marlins now.
That was a GREAT team!I'm pretty sure the 1st WS they won they had the highest payroll in baseball full of high dollar free agent signings.Since 1997, Yankess titles 3, Marlins titles 2. I'm not saying I agree with the Marlins philosophy, but they have more titles in recent years than a lot of teams spending way more money.Sure will be fun to see 2,000 show up on opening day. People who ##### about Steinbrenner ruining the integrity of the game by spending so much for players can always root for the Marlins now.
Sergio Mitre (if healthy)
GO CUBS GO!Since 1997, Yankess titles 3, Marlins titles 2. I'm not saying I agree with the Marlins philosophy, but they have more titles in recent years than a lot of teams spending way more money.Sure will be fun to see 2,000 show up on opening day. People who ##### about Steinbrenner ruining the integrity of the game by spending so much for players can always root for the Marlins now.
Now, they've got plenty of holes to be sure, but they've got some promising young players as well. Maybin, Hermida, Hanley Ramirez, Uggla, Miller, and some pretty good arms in the bullpen. Cabrera is a huge hit to the offense, but realistically dumping Dontrelle was a good baseball move.Sure, they wont be good this year, but depending on whats in their farm system, they might be set up for another run at the post season as early as next year.
I'm going to guess that it would cost much more than that. If they have profits of even 20 mil from revenue sharing (which are going up every year) then you're looking at an enterprise value of at least 200 million per team.
If by "baseball" you mean Bud, doesn't he get elected/paid by these same owners he should punish?
No, the real problem is that not all teams have access to the same revenue streams, which creates competitive imbalance. When one team has $300 million in revenue and another has $150 million, there's a built-in flaw there, not that it'll ever get fixed.Without a salary cap, a salary floor makes no sense at all.
If that's their grand strategy, fine, but it's then kinda BS to charge the same for tickets during those rebuilding years.
Most teams are good about utilizing this cash. The Royals, god love them, have an impossible road, but they signed Meche, they signed Guillen, they're in on Mahay, they aren't white flagging it. Why should the Fish get revenue to put straight into their pocket, when at least intrinsically, its structured as a response to the competive imbalance of large market/yankee spending?
Having a salary floor is dumb. I can't imagine requiring the Marlins to have to spend an additional 20-30MM this year especially with the mediocre talent that is available. Everyone has there model of how to run a franchise. Not every market can support a team with a 150MM payroll. Some teams have to be more shrewd about things.
No. I know Yankee hate blinds people like George Bush hate, but your post is not correct. You cannot claim about competitive imbalance and then defend a team that does not spend the money it gets for that specific purpose. If the Marlins had a payroll at least equal to the revenue sharing number, then you might have a point. Until then, you have none.The league is giving these teams a built in revenue stream. 30-40 million just for being (and having other teams spend a lot of money). Salary should start at that number. If not, then those teams are a bigger problem to the league then the Yankees and Red Sox ever have or will be.
No, it's not a good post. At all. Every market in baseball CAN support a team with a 30-40 million dollar payroll. That is where they should start.Having a salary floor is dumb. I can't imagine requiring the Marlins to have to spend an additional 20-30MM this year especially with the mediocre talent that is available. Everyone has there model of how to run a franchise. Not every market can support a team with a 150MM payroll. Some teams have to be more shrewd about things.
They should not be allowed to get any revenue sharing. I hope no fans show up.
why do they need to share in revenue if they aren't going to spend that revenue on players? why should other teams offer profit subsidies for the Fish?Having a salary floor is dumb. I can't imagine requiring the Marlins to have to spend an additional 20-30MM this year especially with the mediocre talent that is available. Everyone has there model of how to run a franchise. Not every market can support a team with a 150MM payroll. Some teams have to be more shrewd about things.
That is the point. If they want to put out a crappy product that is fine, but they should get any funds. The purpose of revenue sharing is to give the teams that can't get as much "other" revenue, some money to spend on their team...not line their pockets. I am in favor of a salary cap anyway, but teams like the Yankees lose money, but the value of their franchise goes up so much that they really aren't losing money (plus they get other income)why do they need to share in revenue if they aren't going to spend that revenue on players? why should other teams offer profit subsidies for the Fish?Having a salary floor is dumb. I can't imagine requiring the Marlins to have to spend an additional 20-30MM this year especially with the mediocre talent that is available. Everyone has there model of how to run a franchise. Not every market can support a team with a 150MM payroll. Some teams have to be more shrewd about things.
I couldn't disagree more. There's nothing in my post that's incorrect at all. It has nothing to do with Yankee hate, either. It's a ridiculous system when some teams operate under payroll constraints that others don't, and until that gap can be bridged, there's no reason to force a team to spend extra money just for the sake of spending it.That extra $30 million won't dent the disparity between what they can afford and what the big spending teams can afford. I see no reason whatsoever to make them spend that money when they'd be better served to invest it into player development and the minor leagues, which won't show up in final payroll numbers. I don't fault any franchise that's won 2 world series in the past decade while operating on a strict budget.
I think there needs to be some sort of a "Brewsters Millions" rule that proves that the funds are being spent in exactly that manner. But still, a team that is recieving revenue sharing should have a "revenue cap". I doubt they would rush off and throw 30 mil into such development. Should they be able to make say, a 10 millon dollar profit, if they are revenue sharing? I don't know where the number is, I'm not saying they have to operate at a loss, but I think there is a great ethical disparity in where they are now versus what they'll recieve.
I often think about this for small market teams, and it is the smartest move IMO. A couple things about the 8 mil salary:1. Wow. That is a pretty good lineup for 8 million bucks. Just scanning the offense - Marc Jacobs, Hanley Ramirez, Jeremy Hermida, Dan Uggla, Josh Willingham. Throw is a blue chip prospect like Maybin. And they have a ton of young arms. I think if management has a clue, they will sign Ramirez immediately to a long term deal.2. To go back to the quote above. Big market teams have consistently thrown relatively big money to very young latin players, in the hopes they would develop ala Vladimir Guarerro and Adrien Beltre. Throwing 250,000 to 1 mil + at several of these prospects would be a heck of a lot better than giving stupid contracts to veterans like Derek Bell and Pat MEars (sorry to pick on you Pirates). If I am the MArlins I immediately set up baseball academys in Latin America, and increase my scouting there. And instead of paying Greg Vaughn a ton of cash (sorry D Rays fans), splurge on a top college/high school prospect instead of only going for players that are "signable". Many top 10 talents slip to the 2nd round due to contract demands. Well, sign one in the first. And sign one in the second.commisholio said:
Being able to, doesn't mean you should. This year for instance you would require the Marlins to sign 2 or 3 guys at 10+MM a piece, I don't think there are 2 or 3 guys worth that that are available. So does that mean that we are forcing teams to make business moves, not because they think it is prudent, but because they have to. A teams payroll isn't going to determine how many wins they get, it's the talent. Forcing teams to sign players based on how much they are spending and not on how talented they are is a bad thing. And while every market may be able to support a 30-40MM payroll not every market can just spend freely. So for every 4 year, 10-12MM contract a team in a lesser market gives out, that takes away from flexibility in future years. And really in order to get to a cap floor, would signing 1 year deals to keep flexibility to guys like Livan Hernandez, Randy Wolf and Barry Bonds really turn a team like the Marlins into a WS contender.No, it's not a good post. At all. Every market in baseball CAN support a team with a 30-40 million dollar payroll. That is where they should start.Having a salary floor is dumb. I can't imagine requiring the Marlins to have to spend an additional 20-30MM this year especially with the mediocre talent that is available. Everyone has there model of how to run a franchise. Not every market can support a team with a 150MM payroll. Some teams have to be more shrewd about things.
Because that's how that team chooses to work the system and that's the way the system is set up.why do they need to share in revenue if they aren't going to spend that revenue on players? why should other teams offer profit subsidies for the Fish?
This is a good point, and one I didn't consider when I dashed off my reply yesterday. If teams want to spend their revenue-sharing $$ like this, I have no problem with it.If they're spending it on nicer cars/yachts/homes for the owners, then my point stands.commisholio said:
