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

[Yankee23Fan]

Last time any of these MLB teams made the playoffs:

Pittsburgh - 14 years

Milwaukie - 24 years

Kansas City - 25 years

Washington/Montreal - 25 years

Tampa Bay - NEVER

Does the NFL have a track record that bad?

With regards to Tampa Bay (joined in 1998) --- The Houston Texans have never made the playoffs (joined in 2002).With regards to Washington/Montreal --- if MLB had the same amount of playoff teams as thje NFL did over the past decade, they would have made the playoffs at least once in the time I outlined above from 1995-2004.

The Kansas City Royals were a powerhouse team in the 70's and early 80's who have fallen on hard times over the past quarter century. Same with the Pirates and Brewers. The Royals have won titles more recently then the Cardinals, Saints, Bengals, Jets, Colts, Chiefs, etc etc etc.

IF you want long term NFL mediocrity and failure, you can choose from any number of teams. The Cardinals and the Saints are the epitomy of failure in the NFL. The Bengals were as well for roughly a decade before their most recent success.

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

So, you have roughly 12 years to work with.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Last time any of these MLB teams made the playoffs:

Pittsburgh - 14 years

Milwaukie - 24 years

Kansas City - 25 years

Washington/Montreal - 25 years

Tampa Bay - NEVER

Does the NFL have a track record that bad?

With regards to Tampa Bay (joined in 1998) --- The Houston Texans have never made the playoffs (joined in 2002).With regards to Washington/Montreal --- if MLB had the same amount of playoff teams as thje NFL did over the past decade, they would have made the playoffs at least once in the time I outlined above from 1995-2004.

The Kansas City Royals were a powerhouse team in the 70's and early 80's who have fallen on hard times over the past quarter century. Same with the Pirates and Brewers. The Royals have won titles more recently then the Cardinals, Saints, Bengals, Jets, Colts, Chiefs, etc etc etc.

IF you want long term NFL mediocrity and failure, you can choose from any number of teams. The Cardinals and the Saints are the epitomy of failure in the NFL. The Bengals were as well for roughly a decade before their most recent success.

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

So, you have roughly 12 years to work with.

I was talking about the current systems and you brought up how things worked in the 1970s. Thanks.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Last time any of these MLB teams made the playoffs:

Pittsburgh - 14 years

Milwaukie - 24 years

Kansas City - 25 years

Washington/Montreal - 25 years

Tampa Bay - NEVER

Does the NFL have a track record that bad?

With regards to Tampa Bay (joined in 1998) --- The Houston Texans have never made the playoffs (joined in 2002).With regards to Washington/Montreal --- if MLB had the same amount of playoff teams as thje NFL did over the past decade, they would have made the playoffs at least once in the time I outlined above from 1995-2004.

The Kansas City Royals were a powerhouse team in the 70's and early 80's who have fallen on hard times over the past quarter century. Same with the Pirates and Brewers. The Royals have won titles more recently then the Cardinals, Saints, Bengals, Jets, Colts, Chiefs, etc etc etc.

IF you want long term NFL mediocrity and failure, you can choose from any number of teams. The Cardinals and the Saints are the epitomy of failure in the NFL. The Bengals were as well for roughly a decade before their most recent success.

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

So, you have roughly 12 years to work with.

I was talking about the current systems and you brought up how things worked in the 1970s. Thanks.

And you obviously can't read. Thanks.

 

[BlueOnion]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

 

[BlueOnion]

Last time any of these MLB teams made the playoffs:

Pittsburgh - 14 years

Milwaukie - 24 years

Kansas City - 25 years

Washington/Montreal - 25 years

Tampa Bay - NEVER

Does the NFL have a track record that bad?

As Y23Fan will say, this is not fair. If we only consider the seasons the Pirates, Brewers, Royals, Expos\Nationals and Devil Rays make the top 4 (playoffs) in their League, then we have to compar them to NFL franchises and their ability to reach the top 4 in their conference.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

 

[BlueOnion]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

 

[Lester Burnham]

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

The same question could be asked now in baseball. I know you disagree with that statement, but I don't.Look, everyone wants to attack baseball because of the salary structure, and the weapon they use is the comparision to the NFL's salary cap.Well, the fact - undeniable fact at that - of the matter is this; since the institution of the NFL salary cap the NFL does have more statistical parity in terms of different franchises appearing in the post season, even when you adjust baseball for the fact that they have fewer teams make it each year. However, the actual difference averages to roughly .5 teams per year difference. That is hardly a canyon's worth of inequity which requires that this subject be beat to death as it is.The NFL has only experienced free agency for a short time as well, this is true. But again, baseball has only had it for 30 years roughly as well. And if you want to expand the debate to cover the past 30 years, let's do it.

 

[BlueOnion]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

The same question could be asked now in baseball. I know you disagree with that statement, but I don't.Look, everyone wants to attack baseball because of the salary structure, and the weapon they use is the comparision to the NFL's salary cap.Well, the fact - undeniable fact at that - of the matter is this; since the institution of the NFL salary cap the NFL does have more statistical parity in terms of different franchises appearing in the post season, even when you adjust baseball for the fact that they have fewer teams make it each year. However, the actual difference averages to roughly .5 teams per year difference. That is hardly a canyon's worth of inequity which requires that this subject be beat to death as it is.The NFL has only experienced free agency for a short time as well, this is true. But again, baseball has only had it for 30 years roughly as well. And if you want to expand the debate to cover the past 30 years, let's do it.

In your case, you define parity by evaluating the entire league and measuring the frequency of unique teams in the playoffs. As long as you stick to this argument, you will always be right.However, the reality is not all teams are the same and ignoring this critical aspect of MLB when discussing parity is a bit silly in my opinion.

 

[BGP]

nobody can ever use the old argument again that you know who's going to win the World Series on the first day of spring training.

It used to be almost tradition that a team with a stud starting pitcher near free agency and no shot to win would trade that pitcher to a contender at the July deadline for good prospects. That made baseball more predictable, imho. In the divisional era, most clubs still have a legit shot at the playoffs at the July deadline, so such trades don't happen anymore. Ultimately, this means playoff teams aren't as good as they used to be, and there's more parity.More puzzling is how clubs have gone away from the "stud pitcher" philosophy. It used to be understood that you win with stud starting pitching. The Yankees every year would go after top guys from Jimmy Key to Roger Clemens. The Braves' core was a stud rotation. I'm not seeing the same priority anymore. The Yankees are happy to try to club everyone to death with hitting and use a weaker rotation. Not surprisingly, they aren't winning titles anymore, and it all looks more random.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

The same question could be asked now in baseball. I know you disagree with that statement, but I don't.Look, everyone wants to attack baseball because of the salary structure, and the weapon they use is the comparision to the NFL's salary cap.Well, the fact - undeniable fact at that - of the matter is this; since the institution of the NFL salary cap the NFL does have more statistical parity in terms of different franchises appearing in the post season, even when you adjust baseball for the fact that they have fewer teams make it each year. However, the actual difference averages to roughly .5 teams per year difference. That is hardly a canyon's worth of inequity which requires that this subject be beat to death as it is.The NFL has only experienced free agency for a short time as well, this is true. But again, baseball has only had it for 30 years roughly as well. And if you want to expand the debate to cover the past 30 years, let's do it.

In your case, you define parity by evaluating the entire league and measuring the frequency of unique teams in the playoffs. As long as you stick to this argument, you will always be right.However, the reality is not all teams are the same and ignoring this critical aspect of MLB when discussing parity is a bit silly in my opinion.

Then how are we to define it? Everyone always complains that there are teams that have no shot. No shot at what? You can only be talking about playoff appearances. What else do you want?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

nobody can ever use the old argument again that you know who's going to win the World Series on the first day of spring training.

It used to be almost tradition that a team with a stud starting pitcher near free agency and no shot to win would trade that pitcher to a contender at the July deadline for good prospects. That made baseball more predictable, imho. In the divisional era, most clubs still have a legit shot at the playoffs at the July deadline, so such trades don't happen anymore. Ultimately, this means playoff teams aren't as good as they used to be, and there's more parity.More puzzling is how clubs have gone away from the "stud pitcher" philosophy. It used to be understood that you win with stud starting pitching. The Yankees every year would go after top guys from Jimmy Key to Roger Clemens. The Braves' core was a stud rotation. I'm not seeing the same priority anymore. The Yankees are happy to try to club everyone to death with hitting and use a weaker rotation. Not surprisingly, they aren't winning titles anymore, and it all looks more random.

There aren't that many stud pitchers out there to grab.

 

[BGP]

nobody can ever use the old argument again that you know who's going to win the World Series on the first day of spring training.

It used to be almost tradition that a team with a stud starting pitcher near free agency and no shot to win would trade that pitcher to a contender at the July deadline for good prospects. That made baseball more predictable, imho. In the divisional era, most clubs still have a legit shot at the playoffs at the July deadline, so such trades don't happen anymore. Ultimately, this means playoff teams aren't as good as they used to be, and there's more parity.More puzzling is how clubs have gone away from the "stud pitcher" philosophy. It used to be understood that you win with stud starting pitching. The Yankees every year would go after top guys from Jimmy Key to Roger Clemens. The Braves' core was a stud rotation. I'm not seeing the same priority anymore. The Yankees are happy to try to club everyone to death with hitting and use a weaker rotation. Not surprisingly, they aren't winning titles anymore, and it all looks more random.

There aren't that many stud pitchers out there to grab.

Sure there have been. This decade we've seen Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling come available. That's two just off the top of my head. If the 2000's Yankees had the same commitment to stud pitchers that the 1990s versions had, both of those guys would have been acquired.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

nobody can ever use the old argument again that you know who's going to win the World Series on the first day of spring training.

It used to be almost tradition that a team with a stud starting pitcher near free agency and no shot to win would trade that pitcher to a contender at the July deadline for good prospects. That made baseball more predictable, imho. In the divisional era, most clubs still have a legit shot at the playoffs at the July deadline, so such trades don't happen anymore. Ultimately, this means playoff teams aren't as good as they used to be, and there's more parity.More puzzling is how clubs have gone away from the "stud pitcher" philosophy. It used to be understood that you win with stud starting pitching. The Yankees every year would go after top guys from Jimmy Key to Roger Clemens. The Braves' core was a stud rotation. I'm not seeing the same priority anymore. The Yankees are happy to try to club everyone to death with hitting and use a weaker rotation. Not surprisingly, they aren't winning titles anymore, and it all looks more random.

There aren't that many stud pitchers out there to grab.

Sure there have been. This decade we've seen Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling come available. That's two just off the top of my head. If the 2000's Yankees had the same commitment to stud pitchers that the 1990s versions had, both of those guys would have been acquired.

It's not that simple. And those are guys that were available to have, and teams went after them. Teams will go after Barry Zito this offseason. But the other teams are starting to realize that they can build around young pitching and they aren't as quick to dump it as they used to.And the Yankees go after the "stud" every chance they get. The most recent was Randy Johnson..

 

[BlueOnion]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

The same question could be asked now in baseball. I know you disagree with that statement, but I don't.Look, everyone wants to attack baseball because of the salary structure, and the weapon they use is the comparision to the NFL's salary cap.Well, the fact - undeniable fact at that - of the matter is this; since the institution of the NFL salary cap the NFL does have more statistical parity in terms of different franchises appearing in the post season, even when you adjust baseball for the fact that they have fewer teams make it each year. However, the actual difference averages to roughly .5 teams per year difference. That is hardly a canyon's worth of inequity which requires that this subject be beat to death as it is.The NFL has only experienced free agency for a short time as well, this is true. But again, baseball has only had it for 30 years roughly as well. And if you want to expand the debate to cover the past 30 years, let's do it.

In your case, you define parity by evaluating the entire league and measuring the frequency of unique teams in the playoffs. As long as you stick to this argument, you will always be right.However, the reality is not all teams are the same and ignoring this critical aspect of MLB when discussing parity is a bit silly in my opinion.

Then how are we to define it? Everyone always complains that there are teams that have no shot. No shot at what? You can only be talking about playoff appearances. What else do you want?

Anyone who says their MLB team has no shot is just belly-aching; any team can potential win the World Series. Heck, I think I have a shot to beat you in a bicycle race even if you had a 10-speed and I had a tricycle, but I wouldn't consider it a fair race. But you asked how should we define it and I don't have a perfect formula at this time. But I do know there are significant flaws in your definition.For instance, let’s imagine we had 10 FBGers participate in 10 bicycle races. We give a 10-speed to one competitor, a dirt bike to 4 competitors and a tricycle to 5 other competitors. There are two ways to look at the results:A) We could look at the results and say, "Look at that. Over 10 races, 8 out of our 10 competitors had a top-3 finish. Looks like parity to me."B) But looking at the results in a different paradigm could reveal a different pattern. "Well the guy with the 10 speed always finished in the top-3. And the guys on the tricycle only had 2 top-3 finishes. It would seem the 10-speed is a significant advantage over the field."You will argue that the discrepancy between a 10-speed and a tricycle exaggerates the discrepancy between the Yankees and Devil Rays. But I am going to argue considering all teams equal and evaluating the frequency of unique teams in the MLB playoffs hides the discrepancy between the haves and have-nots.

 

[BGP]

nobody can ever use the old argument again that you know who's going to win the World Series on the first day of spring training.

It used to be almost tradition that a team with a stud starting pitcher near free agency and no shot to win would trade that pitcher to a contender at the July deadline for good prospects. That made baseball more predictable, imho. In the divisional era, most clubs still have a legit shot at the playoffs at the July deadline, so such trades don't happen anymore. Ultimately, this means playoff teams aren't as good as they used to be, and there's more parity.More puzzling is how clubs have gone away from the "stud pitcher" philosophy. It used to be understood that you win with stud starting pitching. The Yankees every year would go after top guys from Jimmy Key to Roger Clemens. The Braves' core was a stud rotation. I'm not seeing the same priority anymore. The Yankees are happy to try to club everyone to death with hitting and use a weaker rotation. Not surprisingly, they aren't winning titles anymore, and it all looks more random.

There aren't that many stud pitchers out there to grab.

Sure there have been. This decade we've seen Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling come available. That's two just off the top of my head. If the 2000's Yankees had the same commitment to stud pitchers that the 1990s versions had, both of those guys would have been acquired.

Here's another one - Bartolo Colon. He came available TWICE this decade. Once when the Indians had their fire sale and then again when he left the Expos. Another guy the old Yankees would have been all over. Cy Young winner - but for the Angels.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

The same question could be asked now in baseball. I know you disagree with that statement, but I don't.Look, everyone wants to attack baseball because of the salary structure, and the weapon they use is the comparision to the NFL's salary cap.Well, the fact - undeniable fact at that - of the matter is this; since the institution of the NFL salary cap the NFL does have more statistical parity in terms of different franchises appearing in the post season, even when you adjust baseball for the fact that they have fewer teams make it each year. However, the actual difference averages to roughly .5 teams per year difference. That is hardly a canyon's worth of inequity which requires that this subject be beat to death as it is.The NFL has only experienced free agency for a short time as well, this is true. But again, baseball has only had it for 30 years roughly as well. And if you want to expand the debate to cover the past 30 years, let's do it.

In your case, you define parity by evaluating the entire league and measuring the frequency of unique teams in the playoffs. As long as you stick to this argument, you will always be right.However, the reality is not all teams are the same and ignoring this critical aspect of MLB when discussing parity is a bit silly in my opinion.

Then how are we to define it? Everyone always complains that there are teams that have no shot. No shot at what? You can only be talking about playoff appearances. What else do you want?

Anyone who says their MLB team has no shot is just belly-aching; any team can potential win the World Series. Heck, I think I have a shot to beat you in a bicycle race even if you had a 10-speed and I had a tricycle, but I wouldn't consider it a fair race. But you asked how should we define it and I don't have a perfect formula at this time. But I do know there are significant flaws in your definition.For instance, let’s imagine we had 10 FBGers participate in 10 bicycle races. We give a 10-speed to one competitor, a dirt bike to 4 competitors and a tricycle to 5 other competitors. There are two ways to look at the results:A) We could look at the results and say, "Look at that. Over 10 races, 8 out of our 10 competitors had a top-3 finish. Looks like parity to me."B) But looking at the results in a different paradigm could reveal a different pattern. "Well the guy with the 10 speed always finished in the top-3. And the guys on the tricycle only had 2 top-3 finishes. It would seem the 10-speed is a significant advantage over the field."You will argue that the discrepancy between a 10-speed and a tricycle exaggerates the discrepancy between the Yankees and Devil Rays. But I am going to argue considering all teams equal and evaluating the frequency of unique teams in the MLB playoffs hides the discrepancy between the haves and have-nots.

The fault in your argument that you always fail to see is that no one is forcing the tricycle on you. You can use any form of bike you want in the race; tricycle, 10-sped, moped, Harley. It's your choice and attacking the guys that choose the 10-speed is a joke.And again, no matter what metaphor you want to come up, in the end, the NFL runs the same metaphorical race over the past decade and it's numbers aren't that much different.

 

[BlueOnion]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

The same question could be asked now in baseball. I know you disagree with that statement, but I don't.Look, everyone wants to attack baseball because of the salary structure, and the weapon they use is the comparision to the NFL's salary cap.Well, the fact - undeniable fact at that - of the matter is this; since the institution of the NFL salary cap the NFL does have more statistical parity in terms of different franchises appearing in the post season, even when you adjust baseball for the fact that they have fewer teams make it each year. However, the actual difference averages to roughly .5 teams per year difference. That is hardly a canyon's worth of inequity which requires that this subject be beat to death as it is.The NFL has only experienced free agency for a short time as well, this is true. But again, baseball has only had it for 30 years roughly as well. And if you want to expand the debate to cover the past 30 years, let's do it.

In your case, you define parity by evaluating the entire league and measuring the frequency of unique teams in the playoffs. As long as you stick to this argument, you will always be right.However, the reality is not all teams are the same and ignoring this critical aspect of MLB when discussing parity is a bit silly in my opinion.

Then how are we to define it? Everyone always complains that there are teams that have no shot. No shot at what? You can only be talking about playoff appearances. What else do you want?

Anyone who says their MLB team has no shot is just belly-aching; any team can potential win the World Series. Heck, I think I have a shot to beat you in a bicycle race even if you had a 10-speed and I had a tricycle, but I wouldn't consider it a fair race. But you asked how should we define it and I don't have a perfect formula at this time. But I do know there are significant flaws in your definition.For instance, let’s imagine we had 10 FBGers participate in 10 bicycle races. We give a 10-speed to one competitor, a dirt bike to 4 competitors and a tricycle to 5 other competitors. There are two ways to look at the results:A) We could look at the results and say, "Look at that. Over 10 races, 8 out of our 10 competitors had a top-3 finish. Looks like parity to me."B) But looking at the results in a different paradigm could reveal a different pattern. "Well the guy with the 10 speed always finished in the top-3. And the guys on the tricycle only had 2 top-3 finishes. It would seem the 10-speed is a significant advantage over the field."You will argue that the discrepancy between a 10-speed and a tricycle exaggerates the discrepancy between the Yankees and Devil Rays. But I am going to argue considering all teams equal and evaluating the frequency of unique teams in the MLB playoffs hides the discrepancy between the haves and have-nots.

The fault in your argument that you always fail to see is that no one is forcing the tricycle on you. You can use any form of bike you want in the race; tricycle, 10-sped, moped, Harley. It's your choice and attacking the guys that choose the 10-speed is a joke.

That is the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. 1) MLB's anti-trust exemption prevents MLB franchises from moving to any market they choose. If franchises could choose their vehicle, I would expect there to be at least 7 teams in New York.2) When Kansas City is having a down season, it may make more economic sense that they 'forfiet' their games in New York. This would save them on travel expense when they were not going to contend anyway. Plus it neatralizes one of the Yankees biggest advantages, revenue streams for home games. Again, MLB doesn't allow them to do it.So no, small market teams cannot 'choose' what bike they want.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

The same question could be asked now in baseball. I know you disagree with that statement, but I don't.Look, everyone wants to attack baseball because of the salary structure, and the weapon they use is the comparision to the NFL's salary cap.Well, the fact - undeniable fact at that - of the matter is this; since the institution of the NFL salary cap the NFL does have more statistical parity in terms of different franchises appearing in the post season, even when you adjust baseball for the fact that they have fewer teams make it each year. However, the actual difference averages to roughly .5 teams per year difference. That is hardly a canyon's worth of inequity which requires that this subject be beat to death as it is.The NFL has only experienced free agency for a short time as well, this is true. But again, baseball has only had it for 30 years roughly as well. And if you want to expand the debate to cover the past 30 years, let's do it.

In your case, you define parity by evaluating the entire league and measuring the frequency of unique teams in the playoffs. As long as you stick to this argument, you will always be right.However, the reality is not all teams are the same and ignoring this critical aspect of MLB when discussing parity is a bit silly in my opinion.

Then how are we to define it? Everyone always complains that there are teams that have no shot. No shot at what? You can only be talking about playoff appearances. What else do you want?

Anyone who says their MLB team has no shot is just belly-aching; any team can potential win the World Series. Heck, I think I have a shot to beat you in a bicycle race even if you had a 10-speed and I had a tricycle, but I wouldn't consider it a fair race. But you asked how should we define it and I don't have a perfect formula at this time. But I do know there are significant flaws in your definition.For instance, let’s imagine we had 10 FBGers participate in 10 bicycle races. We give a 10-speed to one competitor, a dirt bike to 4 competitors and a tricycle to 5 other competitors. There are two ways to look at the results:A) We could look at the results and say, "Look at that. Over 10 races, 8 out of our 10 competitors had a top-3 finish. Looks like parity to me."B) But looking at the results in a different paradigm could reveal a different pattern. "Well the guy with the 10 speed always finished in the top-3. And the guys on the tricycle only had 2 top-3 finishes. It would seem the 10-speed is a significant advantage over the field."You will argue that the discrepancy between a 10-speed and a tricycle exaggerates the discrepancy between the Yankees and Devil Rays. But I am going to argue considering all teams equal and evaluating the frequency of unique teams in the MLB playoffs hides the discrepancy between the haves and have-nots.

The fault in your argument that you always fail to see is that no one is forcing the tricycle on you. You can use any form of bike you want in the race; tricycle, 10-sped, moped, Harley. It's your choice and attacking the guys that choose the 10-speed is a joke.

That is the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. 1) MLB's anti-trust exemption prevents MLB franchises from moving to any market they choose. If franchises could choose their vehicle, I would expect there to be at least 7 teams in New York.2) When Kansas City is having a down season, it may make more economic sense that they 'forfiet' their games in New York. This would save them on travel expense when they were not going to contend anyway. Plus it neatralizes one of the Yankees biggest advantages, revenue streams for home games. Again, MLB doesn't allow them to do it.So no, small market teams cannot 'choose' what bike they want.

Yes they can. I give you the Marlins - team talked of in contraction, a team with a low payroll, and a team that has won a World Series more recently then the Yankees.I give you the Angels. A team talked of in contraction, a team that was considered small market until new ownership took it over, and a team with a more recent title then the Yankees.I give you the Tigers. A team talked about akin to the Royals. A team that was close to the best in baseball this year and made the playoffs.You lose. You always lose. You fail to see that, and I don't know why I bother.

 

[BlueOnion]

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

The same question could be asked now in baseball. I know you disagree with that statement, but I don't.Look, everyone wants to attack baseball because of the salary structure, and the weapon they use is the comparision to the NFL's salary cap.Well, the fact - undeniable fact at that - of the matter is this; since the institution of the NFL salary cap the NFL does have more statistical parity in terms of different franchises appearing in the post season, even when you adjust baseball for the fact that they have fewer teams make it each year. However, the actual difference averages to roughly .5 teams per year difference. That is hardly a canyon's worth of inequity which requires that this subject be beat to death as it is.The NFL has only experienced free agency for a short time as well, this is true. But again, baseball has only had it for 30 years roughly as well. And if you want to expand the debate to cover the past 30 years, let's do it.

In your case, you define parity by evaluating the entire league and measuring the frequency of unique teams in the playoffs. As long as you stick to this argument, you will always be right.However, the reality is not all teams are the same and ignoring this critical aspect of MLB when discussing parity is a bit silly in my opinion.

Then how are we to define it? Everyone always complains that there are teams that have no shot. No shot at what? You can only be talking about playoff appearances. What else do you want?

Anyone who says their MLB team has no shot is just belly-aching; any team can potential win the World Series. Heck, I think I have a shot to beat you in a bicycle race even if you had a 10-speed and I had a tricycle, but I wouldn't consider it a fair race. But you asked how should we define it and I don't have a perfect formula at this time. But I do know there are significant flaws in your definition.For instance, let’s imagine we had 10 FBGers participate in 10 bicycle races. We give a 10-speed to one competitor, a dirt bike to 4 competitors and a tricycle to 5 other competitors. There are two ways to look at the results:A) We could look at the results and say, "Look at that. Over 10 races, 8 out of our 10 competitors had a top-3 finish. Looks like parity to me."B) But looking at the results in a different paradigm could reveal a different pattern. "Well the guy with the 10 speed always finished in the top-3. And the guys on the tricycle only had 2 top-3 finishes. It would seem the 10-speed is a significant advantage over the field."You will argue that the discrepancy between a 10-speed and a tricycle exaggerates the discrepancy between the Yankees and Devil Rays. But I am going to argue considering all teams equal and evaluating the frequency of unique teams in the MLB playoffs hides the discrepancy between the haves and have-nots.

The fault in your argument that you always fail to see is that no one is forcing the tricycle on you. You can use any form of bike you want in the race; tricycle, 10-sped, moped, Harley. It's your choice and attacking the guys that choose the 10-speed is a joke.

That is the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. 1) MLB's anti-trust exemption prevents MLB franchises from moving to any market they choose. If franchises could choose their vehicle, I would expect there to be at least 7 teams in New York.2) When Kansas City is having a down season, it may make more economic sense that they 'forfiet' their games in New York. This would save them on travel expense when they were not going to contend anyway. Plus it neatralizes one of the Yankees biggest advantages, revenue streams for home games. Again, MLB doesn't allow them to do it.So no, small market teams cannot 'choose' what bike they want.

Yes they can. I give you the Marlins - team talked of in contraction, a team with a low payroll, and a team that has won a World Series more recently then the Yankees.I give you the Angels. A team talked of in contraction, a team that was considered small market until new ownership took it over, and a team with a more recent title then the Yankees.I give you the Tigers. A team talked about akin to the Royals. A team that was close to the best in baseball this year and made the playoffs.You lose. You always lose. You fail to see that, and I don't know why I bother.

You do this every time, you try to change the topic when you start to lose the argument. We were not arguing if every team has a chance, we were arguing if every team has the same chance.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You do this every time, you try to change the topic when you start to lose the argument. We were not arguing if every team has a chance, we were arguing if every team has the same chance.

Nice try. I never have changed my arguments in this. You have. Many of you anti-baseball people have. Every time you are proved wrong (proved, not getting to the point where you assumptions are questioned - proved wrong) you change your demand.What does it mean, the same chance? Same chance at what? And why do even bother trying to make your argument in that universe, when you should know that the logicial argument to be, which cannot be refuted, no team in any of the 4 major sports has the "same" chance, no matter the economic structure.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.

 

[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.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

 

[TommyGilmore]

So no, small market teams cannot 'choose' what bike they want.

Yes they can. I give you the Marlins - team talked of in contraction, a team with a low payroll, and a team that has won a World Series more recently then the Yankees.I give you the Angels. A team talked of in contraction, a team that was considered small market until new ownership took it over, and a team with a more recent title then the Yankees.

I give you the Tigers. A team talked about akin to the Royals. A team that was close to the best in baseball this year and made the playoffs.

You lose. You always lose. You fail to see that, and I don't know why I bother.

And I give you the Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Orioles and Devil Rays. Teams that -- under the current system -- will never contend for the World Series, and will be lucky to ever sniff the playoffs.In the NFL, every team has a shot, and every fan goes into the season with optimism.

In MLB, 25% of the entire fanbase knows from Day One that their team will not be competitive.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So no, small market teams cannot 'choose' what bike they want.

Yes they can. I give you the Marlins - team talked of in contraction, a team with a low payroll, and a team that has won a World Series more recently then the Yankees.I give you the Angels. A team talked of in contraction, a team that was considered small market until new ownership took it over, and a team with a more recent title then the Yankees.

I give you the Tigers. A team talked about akin to the Royals. A team that was close to the best in baseball this year and made the playoffs.

You lose. You always lose. You fail to see that, and I don't know why I bother.

And I give you the Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Orioles and Devil Rays. Teams that -- under the current system -- will never contend for the World Series, and will be lucky to ever sniff the playoffs.In the NFL, every team has a shot, and every fan goes into the season with optimism.

In MLB, 25% of the entire fanbase knows from Day One that their team will not be competitive.

A few years ago that list you came up with included the Marlins and the Angels and the Tigers and the White Sox. So, how's that working for you?As for the NFL, really? Cardinals and Saints? Really?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So no, small market teams cannot 'choose' what bike they want.

Yes they can. I give you the Marlins - team talked of in contraction, a team with a low payroll, and a team that has won a World Series more recently then the Yankees.I give you the Angels. A team talked of in contraction, a team that was considered small market until new ownership took it over, and a team with a more recent title then the Yankees.

I give you the Tigers. A team talked about akin to the Royals. A team that was close to the best in baseball this year and made the playoffs.

You lose. You always lose. You fail to see that, and I don't know why I bother.

And I give you the Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Orioles and Devil Rays. Teams that -- under the current system -- will never contend for the World Series, and will be lucky to ever sniff the playoffs.In the NFL, every team has a shot, and every fan goes into the season with optimism.

In MLB, 25% of the entire fanbase knows from Day One that their team will not be competitive.

A few years ago that list you came up with included the Marlins and the Angels and the Tigers and the White Sox. So, how's that working for you?As for the NFL, really? Cardinals and Saints? Really?

And then there's the Twins.... and the A's.....

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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 dies

2) MLB adopts some sort of salary cap

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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.

I don't understand why a cap on the major league team would be useless. You wouldn't be able to bring a player up from the minors if it would put your team over the cap. Or is there something I'm missing?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

I don't understand why a cap on the major league team would be useless. You wouldn't be able to bring a player up from the minors if it would put your team over the cap. Or is there something I'm missing?

Then you are also capping minor league contracts as part of the major league cap. Which means that the cap will be significantly higher then what most people thik it will be.The bigger problem is that there are September call ups and DL moves throughout the year. IF you do not factor in the minor league players, then you are basically requiring every major league team to spend significantly under its cap to ensure that it has room to follow the rules of the game in September. I don't see how you can make that a viable system.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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.

I don't understand why a cap on the major league team would be useless. You wouldn't be able to bring a player up from the minors if it would put your team over the cap. Or is there something I'm missing?

Then you are also capping minor league contracts as part of the major league cap. Which means that the cap will be significantly higher then what most people thik it will be.The bigger problem is that there are September call ups and DL moves throughout the year. IF you do not factor in the minor league players, then you are basically requiring every major league team to spend significantly under its cap to ensure that it has room to follow the rules of the game in September. I don't see how you can make that a viable system.

How would it be capping minor league contracts?Anyway, these don't seem like such difficult hurdles to manage. Assuming the league keeps expanded rosters in September (which personally I think are stupid and should be done away with), the cap would expand accordingly during that time period. As for injured players, both the NFL and NBA have injuries but somehow manage to have a salary cap. Why is MLB different?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

I don't understand why a cap on the major league team would be useless. You wouldn't be able to bring a player up from the minors if it would put your team over the cap. Or is there something I'm missing?

Then you are also capping minor league contracts as part of the major league cap. Which means that the cap will be significantly higher then what most people thik it will be.The bigger problem is that there are September call ups and DL moves throughout the year. IF you do not factor in the minor league players, then you are basically requiring every major league team to spend significantly under its cap to ensure that it has room to follow the rules of the game in September. I don't see how you can make that a viable system.

How would it be capping minor league contracts?Anyway, these don't seem like such difficult hurdles to manage. Assuming the league keeps expanded rosters in September (which personally I think are stupid and should be done away with), the cap would expand accordingly during that time period. As for injured players, both the NFL and NBA have injuries but somehow manage to have a salary cap. Why is MLB different?

I think they are very hard things to manage. You have to remember that the minors in baseball are not the same as the practice squad in the NFL or NBA. They are actuall leagues onto themsevles as well. Therefore, by erecting a cap that doesn't take the minor league autonomy into consideration, you will actually be hurting the game in the long term because you will be gutting the minor leagues.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think they are very hard things to manage. You have to remember that the minors in baseball are not the same as the practice squad in the NFL or NBA. They are actuall leagues onto themsevles as well. Therefore, by erecting a cap that doesn't take the minor league autonomy into consideration, you will actually be hurting the game in the long term because you will be gutting the minor leagues.

Huh? How would the minor leagues be "gutted?" I don't understand.

 

[Hoosier Daddy?]

I haven't read this whole thread, only the first page. But I wanted to make a comment to the argument of "it doesn't matter whether my team is winning because of their high payroll or because they have good players/owners/coaches." Its called an even playing field for all teams. If you give a salary cap, everybody has to play under it and can't spend more. So no team has an unfair advantage of, "ha ha, I can afford all these all-stars and you can't!"

In baseball, the poor teams can't afford all the good players like the richer teams can, therefor its harder for them to improve. In the NFL, each team has the same amount of money to spend, its just a matter of the coaches, owners, and GMs making good decisions.

The end. That's all.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I think they are very hard things to manage. You have to remember that the minors in baseball are not the same as the practice squad in the NFL or NBA. They are actuall leagues onto themsevles as well. Therefore, by erecting a cap that doesn't take the minor league autonomy into consideration, you will actually be hurting the game in the long term because you will be gutting the minor leagues.

Huh? How would the minor leagues be "gutted?" I don't understand.

If you basically set up a system whereby the minor leagues are only treated as the practice squads for the majors, and not leagues onto themselves, then what do the minor league games become?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I haven't read this whole thread, only the first page. But I wanted to make a comment to the argument of "it doesn't matter whether my team is winning because of their high payroll or because they have good players/owners/coaches." Its called an even playing field for all teams. If you give a salary cap, everybody has to play under it and can't spend more. So no team has an unfair advantage of, "ha ha, I can afford all these all-stars and you can't!" In baseball, the poor teams can't afford all the good players like the richer teams can, therefor its harder for them to improve. In the NFL, each team has the same amount of money to spend, its just a matter of the coaches, owners, and GMs making good decisions. The end. That's all.

I suggest you read the whole thread.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think they are very hard things to manage. You have to remember that the minors in baseball are not the same as the practice squad in the NFL or NBA. They are actuall leagues onto themsevles as well. Therefore, by erecting a cap that doesn't take the minor league autonomy into consideration, you will actually be hurting the game in the long term because you will be gutting the minor leagues.

Huh? How would the minor leagues be "gutted?" I don't understand.

If you basically set up a system whereby the minor leagues are only treated as the practice squads for the majors, and not leagues onto themselves, then what do the minor league games become?

Where are you getting that I'm changing anything about that system?

 

[GSNVulture]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

The same question could be asked now in baseball. I know you disagree with that statement, but I don't.Look, everyone wants to attack baseball because of the salary structure, and the weapon they use is the comparision to the NFL's salary cap.Well, the fact - undeniable fact at that - of the matter is this; since the institution of the NFL salary cap the NFL does have more statistical parity in terms of different franchises appearing in the post season, even when you adjust baseball for the fact that they have fewer teams make it each year. However, the actual difference averages to roughly .5 teams per year difference. That is hardly a canyon's worth of inequity which requires that this subject be beat to death as it is.The NFL has only experienced free agency for a short time as well, this is true. But again, baseball has only had it for 30 years roughly as well. And if you want to expand the debate to cover the past 30 years, let's do it.

In your case, you define parity by evaluating the entire league and measuring the frequency of unique teams in the playoffs. As long as you stick to this argument, you will always be right.However, the reality is not all teams are the same and ignoring this critical aspect of MLB when discussing parity is a bit silly in my opinion.

Then how are we to define it? Everyone always complains that there are teams that have no shot. No shot at what? You can only be talking about playoff appearances. What else do you want?

Anyone who says their MLB team has no shot is just belly-aching; any team can potential win the World Series. Heck, I think I have a shot to beat you in a bicycle race even if you had a 10-speed and I had a tricycle, but I wouldn't consider it a fair race. But you asked how should we define it and I don't have a perfect formula at this time. But I do know there are significant flaws in your definition.For instance, let’s imagine we had 10 FBGers participate in 10 bicycle races. We give a 10-speed to one competitor, a dirt bike to 4 competitors and a tricycle to 5 other competitors. There are two ways to look at the results:A) We could look at the results and say, "Look at that. Over 10 races, 8 out of our 10 competitors had a top-3 finish. Looks like parity to me."B) But looking at the results in a different paradigm could reveal a different pattern. "Well the guy with the 10 speed always finished in the top-3. And the guys on the tricycle only had 2 top-3 finishes. It would seem the 10-speed is a significant advantage over the field."You will argue that the discrepancy between a 10-speed and a tricycle exaggerates the discrepancy between the Yankees and Devil Rays. But I am going to argue considering all teams equal and evaluating the frequency of unique teams in the MLB playoffs hides the discrepancy between the haves and have-nots.

The fault in your argument that you always fail to see is that no one is forcing the tricycle on you. You can use any form of bike you want in the race; tricycle, 10-sped, moped, Harley. It's your choice and attacking the guys that choose the 10-speed is a joke.And again, no matter what metaphor you want to come up, in the end, the NFL runs the same metaphorical race over the past decade and it's numbers aren't that much different.

Your arguement is false there is no choice. SMALL MARKET TEAMS ARE FORCED TO RIDE TRICYCLES!!! Without shared revenues and installing a cap small market team owners cannott compete. Is an owner suppose to lose money to compete? I dont understand how you can feel baseball is even remotely a fair playing feild.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I think they are very hard things to manage. You have to remember that the minors in baseball are not the same as the practice squad in the NFL or NBA. They are actuall leagues onto themsevles as well. Therefore, by erecting a cap that doesn't take the minor league autonomy into consideration, you will actually be hurting the game in the long term because you will be gutting the minor leagues.

Huh? How would the minor leagues be "gutted?" I don't understand.

If you basically set up a system whereby the minor leagues are only treated as the practice squads for the majors, and not leagues onto themselves, then what do the minor league games become?

Where are you getting that I'm changing anything about that system?

You said you simply can have the cap expand in September. Expand to what? Cover all the minor league salaries that come up? Set an actual limit on what can come up? What about movement between the minors?If you expand the cap in September to cover any minor league players that come up, then what's to stop teams from signing guys to minor league deals to get around the cap in the majors? And how does that cap effect movement of guys in the minors before the September call ups?IF you simply set a ceiling and say you can call up your extra 15 guys, but they can make no more then a combined X, then you are basically capping the payrolls of the minors. However you are doing it not for the competition of the minors, but for the parity in the majors. So you are in effect gutting the minors from their autonomous self to a degree. If you have no problem with that, fine. I do. But then what does that September cap do to the movement during the rest of the year, and as between the minor league clubs? Does each level get a cap? A total cap for the whole organization? What?If each level gets a cap, how do you organize it? I ask that because I'm pretty sure there are a lot of teams that have more then 1 A level club. And then there are the international leagues and semi-pro clubs that while they aren't part of the MLB structure like the A and AA clubs are, the MLB organizations do affiliate with them I think. If you are going to cap them just in and of themselves, I guess you could pull it off. Of course, given the movement in the minors I seriously doubt it's possible.If you are going to just place a total cap on the entire organization, then any owner worth his salt is going to spend the overwhelming majority of his money on the MLB team, almost to the point of starvation of the minor leagues. The minor leagues, will most likely, be gutted of any funding because the big money is in the majors. Without money in the minors, the growth and teaching of young players will decline and you will end up with a salary cap that gives every team some kind of pie in the sky equality of opportunity with mediocre players because no one has the money investing in the R & D part of the game.The NFL is lucky with their set up. Hundreds of colleges throughout the country spend a fortune to do all the work prior to the start of a players NFL career, and the NFL doesn't have to spend a dime on any of it. They just sit back and watch, take notes, and then select the player in the draft, train him with the playbook for 3 months and throw him in the fire. In baseball, unless you are an uber uber stud you are in the minors for years learning the game and waiting for your chance. And that costs money and time.It's actually not even fair that people like you and Blue Onion try to compare the two sports. Baseball organizations do more work and spend more time developing their organizations then any NFL team, and they do it over the span of 4 different levels of the professional game, each level with some uniqueness onto itself and need to succeed at its own level, while planting the seeds for success at the highest level.And with all those things going on, and no salary cap, the major league clubs in MLB are just as competative with each other as the clubs in the NFL are with each other, with a cap, under two vastly different economic models.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And again, the arguments about parity in the NFL can not begin before 1995, when the institution of the salary cap began. Because, before that, there was no parity in the game, and the people that complain about baseball, are complaining about the difference in salaries.

Not a 100% accurate. If the NFL went back to the pre-1995 era then you are right, there is no salary cap. But there is no free agency either so your enite 'salary' conclusion is mute.

Fine by me. Then we can start the baseball parity discussion from 1977 then. And hey, look at that, teams like the Royals dominated then. That's not fair. And the Pirates. How dare they win 3 divisions in 4 years.

Whats not fair about the Royals and Pirates dominating? What resources are available to them that are not available to other teams?

The same question could be asked now in baseball. I know you disagree with that statement, but I don't.Look, everyone wants to attack baseball because of the salary structure, and the weapon they use is the comparision to the NFL's salary cap.Well, the fact - undeniable fact at that - of the matter is this; since the institution of the NFL salary cap the NFL does have more statistical parity in terms of different franchises appearing in the post season, even when you adjust baseball for the fact that they have fewer teams make it each year. However, the actual difference averages to roughly .5 teams per year difference. That is hardly a canyon's worth of inequity which requires that this subject be beat to death as it is.The NFL has only experienced free agency for a short time as well, this is true. But again, baseball has only had it for 30 years roughly as well. And if you want to expand the debate to cover the past 30 years, let's do it.

In your case, you define parity by evaluating the entire league and measuring the frequency of unique teams in the playoffs. As long as you stick to this argument, you will always be right.However, the reality is not all teams are the same and ignoring this critical aspect of MLB when discussing parity is a bit silly in my opinion.

Then how are we to define it? Everyone always complains that there are teams that have no shot. No shot at what? You can only be talking about playoff appearances. What else do you want?

Anyone who says their MLB team has no shot is just belly-aching; any team can potential win the World Series. Heck, I think I have a shot to beat you in a bicycle race even if you had a 10-speed and I had a tricycle, but I wouldn't consider it a fair race. But you asked how should we define it and I don't have a perfect formula at this time. But I do know there are significant flaws in your definition.For instance, let’s imagine we had 10 FBGers participate in 10 bicycle races. We give a 10-speed to one competitor, a dirt bike to 4 competitors and a tricycle to 5 other competitors. There are two ways to look at the results:A) We could look at the results and say, "Look at that. Over 10 races, 8 out of our 10 competitors had a top-3 finish. Looks like parity to me."B) But looking at the results in a different paradigm could reveal a different pattern. "Well the guy with the 10 speed always finished in the top-3. And the guys on the tricycle only had 2 top-3 finishes. It would seem the 10-speed is a significant advantage over the field."You will argue that the discrepancy between a 10-speed and a tricycle exaggerates the discrepancy between the Yankees and Devil Rays. But I am going to argue considering all teams equal and evaluating the frequency of unique teams in the MLB playoffs hides the discrepancy between the haves and have-nots.

The fault in your argument that you always fail to see is that no one is forcing the tricycle on you. You can use any form of bike you want in the race; tricycle, 10-sped, moped, Harley. It's your choice and attacking the guys that choose the 10-speed is a joke.And again, no matter what metaphor you want to come up, in the end, the NFL runs the same metaphorical race over the past decade and it's numbers aren't that much different.

Your arguement is false there is no choice. SMALL MARKET TEAMS ARE FORCED TO RIDE TRICYCLES!!! Without shared revenues and installing a cap small market team owners cannott compete. Is an owner suppose to lose money to compete? I dont understand how you can feel baseball is even remotely a fair playing feild.

Because I have facts and choose to read them. If you are interested in the failure of your post to be close to anything remotely true, especially regarding the argument of the "small market team not being competative," please refer to the World Series participants since free agency in baseball, paying particular attention to the A's, Reds, Tigers, Royals, Twins, Marlins, Angels, Indians, Padres, and Brewers.Thanks.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think they are very hard things to manage. You have to remember that the minors in baseball are not the same as the practice squad in the NFL or NBA. They are actuall leagues onto themsevles as well. Therefore, by erecting a cap that doesn't take the minor league autonomy into consideration, you will actually be hurting the game in the long term because you will be gutting the minor leagues.

Huh? How would the minor leagues be "gutted?" I don't understand.

If you basically set up a system whereby the minor leagues are only treated as the practice squads for the majors, and not leagues onto themselves, then what do the minor league games become?

Where are you getting that I'm changing anything about that system?

You said you simply can have the cap expand in September. Expand to what? Cover all the minor league salaries that come up? Set an actual limit on what can come up? What about movement between the minors?If you expand the cap in September to cover any minor league players that come up, then what's to stop teams from signing guys to minor league deals to get around the cap in the majors? And how does that cap effect movement of guys in the minors before the September call ups?IF you simply set a ceiling and say you can call up your extra 15 guys, but they can make no more then a combined X, then you are basically capping the payrolls of the minors. However you are doing it not for the competition of the minors, but for the parity in the majors. So you are in effect gutting the minors from their autonomous self to a degree. If you have no problem with that, fine. I do. But then what does that September cap do to the movement during the rest of the year, and as between the minor league clubs? Does each level get a cap? A total cap for the whole organization? What?

Seriously, you're making this way more confusing than it is. It would be something like: Major league salary cap = $100 million per team. When rosters expand, the salary cap = $125 million per team. Now how does this destroy minor league baseball again?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Seriously, you're making this way more confusing than it is. It would be something like: Major league salary cap = $100 million per team. When rosters expand, the salary cap = $125 million per team. Now how does this destroy minor league baseball again?

So, the majors have a $100 million dollar cap of, what, major league contracts? Fine. I'll sign all my players to AA ball contracts, have them start opening day in AA ball and then call them up. No salary to report as major league salary against the cap.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Seriously, you're making this way more confusing than it is. It would be something like: Major league salary cap = $100 million per team. When rosters expand, the salary cap = $125 million per team. Now how does this destroy minor league baseball again?

So, the majors have a $100 million dollar cap of, what, major league contracts? Fine. I'll sign all my players to AA ball contracts, have them start opening day in AA ball and then call them up. No salary to report as major league salary against the cap.

The players on the major league team count towards the cap. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Seriously, you're making this way more confusing than it is. It would be something like: Major league salary cap = $100 million per team. When rosters expand, the salary cap = $125 million per team. Now how does this destroy minor league baseball again?

So, the majors have a $100 million dollar cap of, what, major league contracts? Fine. I'll sign all my players to AA ball contracts, have them start opening day in AA ball and then call them up. No salary to report as major league salary against the cap.

The players on the major league team count towards the cap. Why is that hard to understand?

It's easy to understand and difficult to impliment. 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. 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. 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.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.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.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Seriously, you're making this way more confusing than it is. It would be something like: Major league salary cap = $100 million per team. When rosters expand, the salary cap = $125 million per team. Now how does this destroy minor league baseball again?

So, the majors have a $100 million dollar cap of, what, major league contracts? Fine. I'll sign all my players to AA ball contracts, have them start opening day in AA ball and then call them up. No salary to report as major league salary against the cap.

The players on the major league team count towards the cap. Why is that hard to understand?

It's easy to understand and difficult to impliment. 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. 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. 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.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.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.

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

 

[Jackstraw]

All I know is that with any kind of payroll equality the Royals would be fielding an outfield of Jermaine Dye(white sox,first), Johnny Damon(Red Sox/Yankees) and Carlos Beltran(A-holes, Mets). All I want to be able to do is hold on to the good players that we draft and we develop. You have no idea how frustrating it is to see these guys leave town in exchange for a sack of potatos. Complete bull####.

So I would like to extend a good old fashioned :middlefinger: to baseball.

 

[Jackstraw]

PS imagine George Brett in pin stripes.

:MIDDLEFINGER: