MLB beats NFL in parity debate... (1 Viewer)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

By definition then, all teams at the start of the season need to be below the cap significantly. Say at least 20 million or so. Because there are injuries and demotions all the time.

So what? NBA and NFL teams have injuries and manage fine.

If a player getting paid a AAA contract gets called up then your system requires that his AAA salary automatically be due against the cap. Teams will need to plan for this, and it will be difficult.

Not really that hard. Every team has injuries. Leave a little room.

It will likely result in severely reduced contracts for non-major league calibur players. This in turn will likely lead to more players wanting their shot at free agency, meaning you haven't solved that beloved problem of keeping your own players. But you aren't going there yet.

I don't care about forcing players to stay on the same teams. In fact, I think it's wrong.

Also, any contract in the minors basically acts like any other contract at any level. What you want to do is effectively sign every player to a major league contract, but not allow all of them to play in the majors. There isn't a chance in hell of that happening.

I'm not sure what the difference would be.

A contracts are worth less then AA contracts which are worth less then AAA contracts which are worth less then MLB contracts, yet you want to treat all of them the same without any change to the structure of the game you are affecting. I don't see how it would work.

What do you mean by "worth less?" Aren't there some minor leaguers compensated more highly than major leaguers?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And that doesn't even address what you are doing to the competition at the minor league levels.

Umm, nothing?

 

[jhib]

Yankee, are you willing to make a bet on this? I'll pick the Yankees. You pick any one NFL team of your choosing. I'll pay you $10,000 any time your time wins the Super Bowl. You pay me $10,000 any time the Yanks win the World Series.We pay each other $5000 if our respective teams make the playoffs.The bet continues until either:1) one of us dies2) MLB adopts some sort of salary cap

If I had the money I'd consider it.What is "some sort of salary cap?" Because, you know, there is a luxry tax that the Yankees pay a ton of money into because of their payroll, and that money goes to the other teams.

OK, let's change it to $1 for playoffs and $2 for championship. You can pick your NFL team now. I'll even let the bet start with the NFL this year, so you've got some apparent locks for your first $1."Some sort of salary cap" means an actual cap on salaries for each team. It can be either a soft cap or a hard cap. But it can't just be a luxury tax.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but here is the problem that many people don't seem to understand for MLB.You need to define the cap you want, and what you have isn't enough. It isn't enough because unlike the NFL, MLB has three levels of minor leagues, and on some of those levels multiple teams, from which to draw players from as well. A cap on the major league club by itslef is useless because then you can just sign guys to minor league contracts.So there is more to this discussion then a simple easy to define cap. And because of that, the luxury tax isn't so off the wall.

Here's another bet for you (since you changed the subject during the last one):I get 3 NFL teams of your choosing. Maybe the Cardinals, Saints and Lions since those are ones that keep getting brought up.You get 3 MLB teams of my choosing. I think I'll go with the Royals, Pirates and Devil Rays.You give me $X every time one of mine makes the NFL playoffs.I give you $X every time one of yours makes the MLB playoffs or would have made your "expanded playoffs".Would you take the bet?

 

[BlueOnion]

Or I'll give you the opposite to that on the other extreme - they all play by the same exact rules, so again, by definition they all have the "same" chance.

I will say I have a lot of respect for you, I think you are very intelligent. However, your Achilles heal is that you refuse to acknowledge that the rules of MLB are set up in such a way that the New York Yankees should have significantly more success than any other team. And because you refuse to acknowledge this aspect of MLB, you can hide behind this facade that parity does exist in MLB.

The rules in baseball are set up in a way so that every team can do whatever they want in order to win within the confines of that actual rules of the game itself. There is nothing more there. People who want to focus on payroll refuse to accept that. What teams have done with the rules and their freedom under those rules is something entirely different.And what you refuse to acknowledge is that defining success for the purposes of parity debate around playoff apearances is about the best way to do it, because if you aren't playing for the playoffs, what's the point? And in that analysis the fact that cannot be argued is that the NFL under its salary cap is only slightly better then MLB without a salary cap, but the difference is not something so severe that this argument needs to be made every week by people who don't like baseball.And if no salary cap automatically demands that the Yankees should have more success, then the converse of that is that with the salary cap, the Cardinals should have just as much success as the Patriots, or even the Titans. But they don't. Because it isn't a zero sum argument like you want to make it.Baseball without a cap is just as competative as football with a cap. The truly remarkable fact in that is that just about everything in the NFL is shared and it's a national sport, whereas in baseball that is not the case and it's a regional sport. Therefore, if you want to get really technical, the fact of the matter is that baseball has more parity then the NFL, and it's model should be applauded, not ridiculed. In the fact of regional individualism, baseball has managed to set up a system where they are just as competative a sport as the NFL is after they have been doing what they've been doing for over a decade.Yet people like you see the Yankees payroll and that's it. Nothing else matters. Fact, logic, truth. Doesn't matter. The Yankees spend over $200 million on their payroll, so by definition, something is wrong. Of course, when the Yankees were spending money in the 80's and early 90's and winning exactly nothing, no one complained. But I digress. All that matters is now is that George runs baseball for his own physical pleasure and the poor poor people in Kansas City and Pittsburgh should be given a cupcake and a ticket to a Chiefs or Steelers game.You also fail to realize in any of these arguments we always have that I simply don't care what baseball does with it's economic model. Keep it the same, institute a cap, institute a floor, and on and on and on. I really don't care. The business of baseball is not why I am a fan of the game, and of the Yankees.And while you continue to argue that it is broken, you fail to define what broken is. I'm not allowed to use playoff appearances. Why? To be honest, I find that absurd, but still. Why can't you use playoff appeaerances? You try to claim that the entire sport is broken, yet you want to confine the discussion of success to a team or two. That is not allowed. You will lose that argument every time. If you want to discuss success or failure of the league, then you must do it on the league level. Any small window in the larger argument can show failure for you or success for me. Given the Patriots dominance of the AFC East over the past half a decade clearly shows that the salary cap has done nothing for parity, right?Of course not. Yet you wish to use that very same argument for the AL East in baseball. Why? You argue that every team should have the same chance. Same chance at what? If I can't use playoff appearances, then what is their "chance" of? Banging the groupies in the locker room? I'll give you that Derek Jeter has a better chance at that then say, Mark Redman on the Royals. The only chance anyone plays for is to win a title. And guess what the difference is in title games between the capped NFL and the uncapped MLB? Go ahead, guess. Now, tell me that the difference is so huge, such a vastly different outcome with two clearly different economic models, that one is clearly superior to the other, or that one is clearly broken.You can't.

We always get to this same point. And I'll tell you again, I can see both sides. If I was a Yankee fan I would say the same things you are and believe the same things you are. But I also understand the other side of the non-Yankee fans. Yet, you have not produced a Royal fan, a Pirate fan or a Devil Ray fan who will say, "Right on Yankee23Fan, you are 100% right". Even these fans would acknowledge they suffer from poor management, yet they still would not agree with you that all teams are being given a fair chance.

 

[thesurfshop19]

We always get to this same point. And I'll tell you again, I can see both sides. If I was a Yankee fan I would say the same things you are and believe the same things you are. But I also understand the other side of the non-Yankee fans.

Yet, you have not produced a Royal fan, a Pirate fan or a Devil Ray fan who will say, "Right on Yankee23Fan, you are 100% right". Even these fans would acknowledge they suffer from poor management, yet they still would not agree with you that all teams are being given a fair chance.

Reds fan here.I tend to lean towards Yankee23Fan's argument here, though.

At the end of the day, the Reds will always have a lower chance than the Yankees of contending, making the playoffs, and winning a championship. But at the end of the day, is this a bad thing for the sport?

Every time the Yankees spend more money in payroll overpaying for aging stars, my team gets money to retain its young pitching (that is, if the Reds ever get any).

Every time the Yankees make the playoffs, that generates more revenue for the sport, some of which is shared over to my team.

Essentially, every extra dollar the Yankees spend doubles up to help small market teams keep their young players (e.g. Johan Santana). This forces the Yankees (and Red Sox) to overpay for older players which will feed the cycle again.

And why does the NBA get a pass here (6 champions in the last 20 years; Shaq, Duncan, and Jordan have combined to appear in 15 of the last 16 NBA Finals, winning 13)? They have a salary cap and it hasn't fixed the system.

MLB hasn't necessarily matched NFL in parity, but it's pretty close for most teams.

 

[BlueOnion]

We always get to this same point. And I'll tell you again, I can see both sides. If I was a Yankee fan I would say the same things you are and believe the same things you are. But I also understand the other side of the non-Yankee fans.

Yet, you have not produced a Royal fan, a Pirate fan or a Devil Ray fan who will say, "Right on Yankee23Fan, you are 100% right". Even these fans would acknowledge they suffer from poor management, yet they still would not agree with you that all teams are being given a fair chance.

Reds fan here.I tend to lean towards Yankee23Fan's argument here, though.

At the end of the day, the Reds will always have a lower chance than the Yankees of contending, making the playoffs, and winning a championship. But at the end of the day, is this a bad thing for the sport?

Y23Fan is saying the Reds have choosen to spend less money than the Yankees.

 

[thesurfshop19]

We always get to this same point. And I'll tell you again, I can see both sides. If I was a Yankee fan I would say the same things you are and believe the same things you are. But I also understand the other side of the non-Yankee fans.

Yet, you have not produced a Royal fan, a Pirate fan or a Devil Ray fan who will say, "Right on Yankee23Fan, you are 100% right". Even these fans would acknowledge they suffer from poor management, yet they still would not agree with you that all teams are being given a fair chance.

Reds fan here.I tend to lean towards Yankee23Fan's argument here, though.

At the end of the day, the Reds will always have a lower chance than the Yankees of contending, making the playoffs, and winning a championship. But at the end of the day, is this a bad thing for the sport?

Y23Fan is saying the Reds have choosen to spend less money than the Yankees.

Well, the Reds realistically have to spend less, but I'm okay with them having less to start off with. There are fewer Reds fans out there so maybe it's fair for them to have a smaller window of contention. I think if teams could freely move that might shake things up nicely. Feel like Tampa's a bad market? Move to Brooklyn, etc. Maybe it's not feasible though, who knows.