What is this about parity in baseball? (1 Viewer)

[Yankee23Fan]

Thats not at all surprising given that there are only 1-2 teams that truly can spend in their own class and have no peers. There is no way you can claim parity in the MLB when the Yankees have an 80% chance or greater of making the playoffs every year before the first pitch is thrown in spring training.

Yes, I can. And your number cannot be proven. In spring training every team has the exact same chance to make the playoffs. Some may have better odds, but the chance they make it is the same. This is why a 100 loss team that people wanted to contract and use as the prime example of the Yankee payroll killing the sport can make the World Series.

That one's my favorite.

:

Do you really think TB has the same chance as the Yankee's?

I think teams like Tampa Bay are more of problem for baseball then the Yankees are. Having a payroll that small is a joke. Pittsburgh, Washington, Florida and Tampa should be the targets for attack, not the Yankees. There is no reason to have a payroll under 40-50 million in this current economic model. The fans of those teams should be blaming their ownership, not the Yankees.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

2007 Payroll (sans Clemens) New York Yankees $ 189,639,045 Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214 New York Mets $ 115,231,663 Los Angeles Angels $ 109,251,333 Chicago White Sox $ 108,671,833 Los Angeles Dodgers $ 108,454,524 Seattle Mariners $ 106,460,833 Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332 Detroit Tigers $ 95,180,369 Baltimore Orioles $ 93,554,808 St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823 San Francisco Giants $ 90,219,056 Philadelphia Phillies $ 89,428,213 Houston Astros $ 87,759,000 Atlanta Braves $ 87,290,833 Toronto Blue Jays $ 81,942,800 Oakland Athletics $ 79,366,940 Minnesota Twins $ 71,439,500 Milwaukee Brewers $ 70,986,500 Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980 Texas Rangers $ 68,318,675 Kansas City Royals $ 67,116,500 Cleveland Indians $ 61,673,267 San Diego Padres $ 58,110,567 Colorado Rockies $ 54,424,000 Arizona Diamondbacks $ 52,067,546 Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833 Washington Nationals $ 37,347,500 Florida Marlins $ 30,507,000 Tampa Bay Devil Rays $ 24,123,500

Add Clemens. It was $20 million, wasn't it? The payroll was well over $200 million this year.That's an interesting list. Save the 4 bottom teams (although the Marlins have won twice), the Diamondbacks have won a title and have a great nucleus that should be winning for a few more years; the Rockies are in the World Series; the Padres have been to the Series and have been contenders; the Indians have had a lot of success; I'm actually surprised the Royals are that high given that many people have said that they simply can't spend any money there; the Rangers were good a few years ago but that Arod contract killed them I think; the Reds haven't had much success lately; it took the Brewers awhile but they are good now; and the Twins and A's are perpetual contenders.The teams $70 million and under haven't had no success. In fact, they've done pretty good. As good as the Yankees? No. But the Yankees salary has been so off the charts for years now that you'd think if it was so bad for the sport and those lower tier teams that they wouldn't have had any of that success, but they have.If you want to measure league parity by different teams in the playoffs since 1994 (when the NFL instituted its cap) baseball as a league is pretty darn close, though obviously not at the exact same or higher level - although it is in much much better shape then the NHL and NBA.If you want to measure it simply by payroll, the low tier teams aren't suffering terribly as a whole.If you want to look at what the Yankees do to the AL East and measure it against an entire other league, then the payroll difference is clearly a problem, at least for the Devil Rays.But the desire for parity is usually giving every team the same relative chance at the beginning of the year. It's not always the same exact down the decimal chance because of various levels of talent in the NFL, and the same is true for baseball. The NFL has teams that have been futile for long stretches like the Royals have been in baseball. But even those bottom 4 teams are not without history save the Devil Rays. The Pirates were close to being a mini dynasty in the early 90's with a young Bonds, the Royals haven't been really good since the 80's but for a good 13 year period were a perennial contender, and the Marlins have won 2 titles since coming into the league in the 90's.Over the long haul, baseball isn't as bad as it's made out. And since the Yankees payroll has become crazy, 2000ish, they haven't won a title, which isn't surprising if you are a fan of the team and seen what they've done.If you want a cap, fine. Go ahead. But don't demonize baseball's model are try to argue that the Yankees are a problem when ignoring the joke that the Devil Rays are. It's created results very similar to the NFL and it's model, with less teams in the playoffs and a much much longer season.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Now, state your case for the other side, yankee.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Now, state your case for the other side, yankee.

Baseball's economic problem is not the total salaries of the teams, its the local and regional aspect of the game trying to compete and be defined by the national experience. The NFL made it's local teams work together long ago for the benefit of the league and it's worked out so much that there is actually a viable, successful and history rich team in Green Bay. The current MLB model would never allow that, in fact it's currently failing in cities like Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh, who have either a wealth of a population to draw from, or a rich sporting past that would make you think that there is a fan base ready to be given a product worthy of spending money on.Further crippling many teams is stadium debt, something the Yankees don't have. Many teams have huge bills to pay before they even pay their first players' salary, let alone the highest players salary. The Yankees don't have that problem. Even instituted a cap won't fix that, but it will enable those teams with huge stadium debt to use a higher percentage of their monetary resources on salary instead of debt financing.And then there is TV. The new wave is obviously having your own television station, and not every team can pull that off. This also furthers the problems of the local over national tradition of the league. Tampa Bay Devils Rays television will never be as successful or lucrative as the YES Network. Without some form of salary cap that forces salaries down, or at least spreads out the talent a little more, teams that don't have secondary revenue streams that big simply can't compete long term. They will have sporadic success given the nature of sport, but over the long term a team in Tampa Bay will never be as viable as a team in New York without some capped salary structure that forces the big guys to slow down and allows the small guys to catch up.A cap would also - as is always brought up - make signing huge contracts more risky as a failed player can seriously harm a team. While that will hurt the small guys too, it will finally hurt the big guys like the Yankees. The Pirates can't pay Giambi $120 million and suffer his injuries the past three years under a cap system any more then the Yankees would be able to. Common sense would dictate that as a result most contracts would decline in value and would stop this never ending multibillion dollar cycle.It would also help smaller market teams keep their kids longer. Imagine a Royals outfield the past couple of years with Beltran, Dye and Damon. With a cap those players may have had a better shot staying there longer and putting together a central division title or two. As it is, between them, they have 2 titles and a lot of playoff appearances.Once those problems are solved with a cap system, the problems of a huge top level payroll above all others, like the Yankees, is solved. As we have seen in the NFL, there will be more turnover in playoff and contending teams, and given baseball's structure, most likely, an increase on focus on home grown talent - whih they would be able to keep longer.The way the system is set up right now, the AL East is pretty much a lost cause due to the Red Sox and Yankees - and the Blue Jays and Orioles have been capable of spending money if they have to. This results in the other 9 teams fighting for 2 spots the entire year, and makes it that much harder for the Central and West teams to sustain success. If the Yankees and Red Sox were capped somewhere near the rest of the league, there's a pretty good chance that teams like the Tigers, Indians and Twins wouldn't always be fighting for one spot.The money, from all sources - many being sources that some teams just cannot match - gives a few teams an advantage that cascades and becomes greater as those teams are more successful, while the teams that can't compete lose a fan base due to not competing. Lose of fan base means lost revenue and an even smaller chance at gaining new revenue sources. An onwer can lose a ton of money and spend to overcome that - like the Diamondbacks of 2001 - but it can't be sustained (that 2001 team cost that franchise 5 years and they are only now getting back to that level).Alex Rodriguez is an easy example. With a cap, the Rangers would likely be praying that he opts out now because it's likely that his salary would have forced them to lose any chance at a pitching staff. But the Yankees take him, and this year, even though about $130 million of their salary on roster didn't do anything most of the year, Alex dragged them to the playoffs. They wouldn't have been there this year without him, and with a cap he would have never been traded to the Yankees - who, by the way joined the Red Sox as the only teams that could afford to trade for him.Baseball needs a structured cap. Without it, given the current make up of the Yankees and Red Sox, there at least 3 teams that have almost no shot, save a perfect season, of making the playoffs. And because of the playoff structure, 3 or 4 really good teams won't have a shot either, and at some point their ownership will have to regroup and lose the players that got them that high. They simply have to be too perfect to have a chance. The Yankees just have to be above average.

 

[Wrigley]

Now, state your case for the other side, yankee.

Baseball's economic problem is not the total salaries of the teams, its the local and regional aspect of the game trying to compete and be defined by the national experience. The NFL made it's local teams work together long ago for the benefit of the league and it's worked out so much that there is actually a viable, successful and history rich team in Green Bay. The current MLB model would never allow that, in fact it's currently failing in cities like Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh, who have either a wealth of a population to draw from, or a rich sporting past that would make you think that there is a fan base ready to be given a product worthy of spending money on.Further crippling many teams is stadium debt, something the Yankees don't have. Many teams have huge bills to pay before they even pay their first players' salary, let alone the highest players salary. The Yankees don't have that problem. Even instituted a cap won't fix that, but it will enable those teams with huge stadium debt to use a higher percentage of their monetary resources on salary instead of debt financing.And then there is TV. The new wave is obviously having your own television station, and not every team can pull that off. This also furthers the problems of the local over national tradition of the league. Tampa Bay Devils Rays television will never be as successful or lucrative as the YES Network. Without some form of salary cap that forces salaries down, or at least spreads out the talent a little more, teams that don't have secondary revenue streams that big simply can't compete long term. They will have sporadic success given the nature of sport, but over the long term a team in Tampa Bay will never be as viable as a team in New York without some capped salary structure that forces the big guys to slow down and allows the small guys to catch up.A cap would also - as is always brought up - make signing huge contracts more risky as a failed player can seriously harm a team. While that will hurt the small guys too, it will finally hurt the big guys like the Yankees. The Pirates can't pay Giambi $120 million and suffer his injuries the past three years under a cap system any more then the Yankees would be able to. Common sense would dictate that as a result most contracts would decline in value and would stop this never ending multibillion dollar cycle.It would also help smaller market teams keep their kids longer. Imagine a Royals outfield the past couple of years with Beltran, Dye and Damon. With a cap those players may have had a better shot staying there longer and putting together a central division title or two. As it is, between them, they have 2 titles and a lot of playoff appearances.Once those problems are solved with a cap system, the problems of a huge top level payroll above all others, like the Yankees, is solved. As we have seen in the NFL, there will be more turnover in playoff and contending teams, and given baseball's structure, most likely, an increase on focus on home grown talent - whih they would be able to keep longer.The way the system is set up right now, the AL East is pretty much a lost cause due to the Red Sox and Yankees - and the Blue Jays and Orioles have been capable of spending money if they have to. This results in the other 9 teams fighting for 2 spots the entire year, and makes it that much harder for the Central and West teams to sustain success. If the Yankees and Red Sox were capped somewhere near the rest of the league, there's a pretty good chance that teams like the Tigers, Indians and Twins wouldn't always be fighting for one spot.The money, from all sources - many being sources that some teams just cannot match - gives a few teams an advantage that cascades and becomes greater as those teams are more successful, while the teams that can't compete lose a fan base due to not competing. Lose of fan base means lost revenue and an even smaller chance at gaining new revenue sources. An onwer can lose a ton of money and spend to overcome that - like the Diamondbacks of 2001 - but it can't be sustained (that 2001 team cost that franchise 5 years and they are only now getting back to that level).Alex Rodriguez is an easy example. With a cap, the Rangers would likely be praying that he opts out now because it's likely that his salary would have forced them to lose any chance at a pitching staff. But the Yankees take him, and this year, even though about $130 million of their salary on roster didn't do anything most of the year, Alex dragged them to the playoffs. They wouldn't have been there this year without him, and with a cap he would have never been traded to the Yankees - who, by the way joined the Red Sox as the only teams that could afford to trade for him.Baseball needs a structured cap. Without it, given the current make up of the Yankees and Red Sox, there at least 3 teams that have almost no shot, save a perfect season, of making the playoffs. And because of the playoff structure, 3 or 4 really good teams won't have a shot either, and at some point their ownership will have to regroup and lose the players that got them that high. They simply have to be too perfect to have a chance. The Yankees just have to be above average.

Like I said, TB has no chanceVery good post.

 

[Darth Cheney]

2007 Payroll (sans Clemens) New York Yankees $ 189,639,045 Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214 New York Mets $ 115,231,663 Los Angeles Angels $ 109,251,333 Chicago White Sox $ 108,671,833 Los Angeles Dodgers $ 108,454,524 Seattle Mariners $ 106,460,833 Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332 Detroit Tigers $ 95,180,369 Baltimore Orioles $ 93,554,808 St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823 San Francisco Giants $ 90,219,056 Philadelphia Phillies $ 89,428,213 Houston Astros $ 87,759,000 Atlanta Braves $ 87,290,833 Toronto Blue Jays $ 81,942,800 Oakland Athletics $ 79,366,940 Minnesota Twins $ 71,439,500 Milwaukee Brewers $ 70,986,500 Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980 Texas Rangers $ 68,318,675 Kansas City Royals $ 67,116,500 Cleveland Indians $ 61,673,267 San Diego Padres $ 58,110,567 Colorado Rockies $ 54,424,000 Arizona Diamondbacks $ 52,067,546 Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833 Washington Nationals $ 37,347,500 Florida Marlins $ 30,507,000 Tampa Bay Devil Rays $ 24,123,500

Add Clemens. It was $20 million, wasn't it? The payroll was well over $200 million this year.That's an interesting list. Save the 4 bottom teams (although the Marlins have won twice), the Diamondbacks have won a title and have a great nucleus that should be winning for a few more years; the Rockies are in the World Series; the Padres have been to the Series and have been contenders; the Indians have had a lot of success; I'm actually surprised the Royals are that high given that many people have said that they simply can't spend any money there; the Rangers were good a few years ago but that Arod contract killed them I think; the Reds haven't had much success lately; it took the Brewers awhile but they are good now; and the Twins and A's are perpetual contenders.The teams $70 million and under haven't had no success. In fact, they've done pretty good. As good as the Yankees? No. But the Yankees salary has been so off the charts for years now that you'd think if it was so bad for the sport and those lower tier teams that they wouldn't have had any of that success, but they have.If you want to measure league parity by different teams in the playoffs since 1994 (when the NFL instituted its cap) baseball as a league is pretty darn close, though obviously not at the exact same or higher level - although it is in much much better shape then the NHL and NBA.If you want to measure it simply by payroll, the low tier teams aren't suffering terribly as a whole.If you want to look at what the Yankees do to the AL East and measure it against an entire other league, then the payroll difference is clearly a problem, at least for the Devil Rays.But the desire for parity is usually giving every team the same relative chance at the beginning of the year. It's not always the same exact down the decimal chance because of various levels of talent in the NFL, and the same is true for baseball. The NFL has teams that have been futile for long stretches like the Royals have been in baseball. But even those bottom 4 teams are not without history save the Devil Rays. The Pirates were close to being a mini dynasty in the early 90's with a young Bonds, the Royals haven't been really good since the 80's but for a good 13 year period were a perennial contender, and the Marlins have won 2 titles since coming into the league in the 90's.Over the long haul, baseball isn't as bad as it's made out. And since the Yankees payroll has become crazy, 2000ish, they haven't won a title, which isn't surprising if you are a fan of the team and seen what they've done.If you want a cap, fine. Go ahead. But don't demonize baseball's model are try to argue that the Yankees are a problem when ignoring the joke that the Devil Rays are. It's created results very similar to the NFL and it's model, with less teams in the playoffs and a much much longer season.

I think you are cutting the D-Rays too much slack. In their earlier years they had a fairly significant payroll (in 2000 I believe they were in the top 10). They tried to win with veterans too early in their lifespan and it set them back. That being said, they are on the verge of making a major stride.

 

[DropKick]

There is clearly a correlation between payroll and getting to the post season.

New York Yankees $ 189,639,045 - Playoff team

Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214 - Playoff team

New York Mets $ 115,231,663 - Only a monumental collapse kept them out

Los Angeles Angels $ 109,251,333 - Playoff team

A claim of parity outside the AL East to deny the huge competitive advantage of New York/Boston is just wrong.

I find it telling that almost immediately after being eliminated this season, the Yankee discussion turned to talks of acquiring Santana. The ability to chase that "brightest jewel" or to outbid their competition at any turn is something the Yankees always have.

Some people see what they want to see and disregard everything else.

 

[Darth Cheney]

There is clearly a correlation between payroll and getting to the post season.

New York Yankees $ 189,639,045 - Playoff team

Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214 - Playoff team

New York Mets $ 115,231,663 - Only a monumental collapse kept them out

Los Angeles Angels $ 109,251,333 - Playoff team

A claim of parity outside the AL East to deny the huge competitive advantage of New York/Boston is just wrong.

I find it telling that almost immediately after being eliminated this season, the Yankee discussion turned to talks of acquiring Santana. The ability to chase that "brightest jewel" or to outbid their competition at any turn is something the Yankees always have.

Some people see what they want to see and disregard everything else.

Right they don't see the lack of a salary floor, teams not spending luxury tax money in the past to increase their payroll, teams making poor business decisions with salary and most important, teams like the A's, Twins and Marlins in the past and the Rockies and D-Backs this year competing and winning in the playoffs despite having low payrolls. While I think that what the Yanks and RedSox do is excessive (and lowering the threshold of the luxury tax would be my first step to solving the "problem") the fact that teams compete in the regular season, compete in the playoffs and win in the playoffs with low payrolls counts for something. There is more than one way to skin a cat and teams have been doing that for the past fifteen years.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

so if the team with the 2nd highest payroll wins the WS will that change your tune?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

so if the team with the 2nd highest payroll wins the WS will that change your tune?

Why should it?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Interesting tidbit I just found out:

The Colts 2006 payroll was $132 million - the highest in the NFL

The Raiders 06 payroll was $72 million - the lowest in the NFL

This is a $61 million dollar difference between the top team and the bottom team - with a salary cap and floor.

The baseball numbers, again, were:

New York Yankees $ 189,639,045

Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214

New York Mets $ 115,231,663

Los Angeles Angels $ 109,251,333

Chicago White Sox $ 108,671,833

Los Angeles Dodgers $ 108,454,524

Seattle Mariners $ 106,460,833

Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332

Detroit Tigers $ 95,180,369

Baltimore Orioles $ 93,554,808

St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823

San Francisco Giants $ 90,219,056

Philadelphia Phillies $ 89,428,213

Houston Astros $ 87,759,000

Atlanta Braves $ 87,290,833

Toronto Blue Jays $ 81,942,800

Oakland Athletics $ 79,366,940

Minnesota Twins $ 71,439,500

Milwaukee Brewers $ 70,986,500

Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980

Texas Rangers $ 68,318,675

Kansas City Royals $ 67,116,500

Cleveland Indians $ 61,673,267

San Diego Padres $ 58,110,567

Colorado Rockies $ 54,424,000

Arizona Diamondbacks $ 52,067,546

Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833

Washington Nationals $ 37,347,500

Florida Marlins $ 30,507,000

Tampa Bay Devil Rays $ 24,123,500

Obviously, there is more then a $100 million dollar difference between the top and bottom, but for the sake of this argument, remove the top 2 teams who are so far ahead of everyone else, and the bottom 4 teams that are a joke to professional sports, and we have the Mets at $115 and the Diamonbacks at $52.

That is a $63 million dollar difference without a cap or floor. And the bottom team in baseball made the NLCS while the bottom team in the NFL was a joke.

I thought that was pretty interesting. I know no one will care because of the Yankees and Red Sox payroll disparity, but to me it looks like baseball is close. I'm wondering if the the best way to solve it is a lower luxury tax limit and a hard salary floor. That would still allow for the New York and Boston disparity, but the more they go above the line, the more the other teams get brought up, and with the floor they can be dragged there kicking and screaming if necessary.

 

[Capella]

Pretty sure that NY payroll was over 200 million with Clemens.

You really should give this up. It's not a winning argument.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Pretty sure that NY payroll was over 200 million with Clemens.You really should give this up. It's not a winning argument.

It was, you're right.As to your second point, not one single person of your opinion has come close to proving anything other then the Yankees spend a lot of money. I'm sorry you have to root for a team that is a joke and an embarrasment to organized sport, but that's not the Yankees' fault.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Interesting tidbit I just found out:The Colts 2006 payroll was $132 million - the highest in the NFLThe Raiders 06 payroll was $72 million - the lowest in the NFLThis is a $61 million dollar difference between the top team and the bottom team - with a salary cap and floor.The baseball numbers, again, were:New York Yankees $ 189,639,045 Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214 New York Mets $ 115,231,663 Los Angeles Angels $ 109,251,333 Chicago White Sox $ 108,671,833 Los Angeles Dodgers $ 108,454,524 Seattle Mariners $ 106,460,833 Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332 Detroit Tigers $ 95,180,369 Baltimore Orioles $ 93,554,808 St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823 San Francisco Giants $ 90,219,056 Philadelphia Phillies $ 89,428,213 Houston Astros $ 87,759,000 Atlanta Braves $ 87,290,833 Toronto Blue Jays $ 81,942,800 Oakland Athletics $ 79,366,940 Minnesota Twins $ 71,439,500 Milwaukee Brewers $ 70,986,500 Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980 Texas Rangers $ 68,318,675 Kansas City Royals $ 67,116,500 Cleveland Indians $ 61,673,267 San Diego Padres $ 58,110,567 Colorado Rockies $ 54,424,000 Arizona Diamondbacks $ 52,067,546 Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833 Washington Nationals $ 37,347,500 Florida Marlins $ 30,507,000 Tampa Bay Devil Rays $ 24,123,500Obviously, there is more then a $100 million dollar difference between the top and bottom, but for the sake of this argument, remove the top 2 teams who are so far ahead of everyone else, and the bottom 4 teams that are a joke to professional sports, and we have the Mets at $115 and the Diamonbacks at $52.That is a $63 million dollar difference without a cap or floor. And the bottom team in baseball made the NLCS while the bottom team in the NFL was a joke. I thought that was pretty interesting. I know no one will care because of the Yankees and Red Sox payroll disparity, but to me it looks like baseball is close. I'm wondering if the the best way to solve it is a lower luxury tax limit and a hard salary floor. That would still allow for the New York and Boston disparity, but the more they go above the line, the more the other teams get brought up, and with the floor they can be dragged there kicking and screaming if necessary.

so you eliminate the top 2 and bottom 4 to make your agruement?baseball needs a cap bro plain and simple. And you ONLY feel the other way cause it will HURT your team the most.

 

[Capella]

As to your second point, not one single person of your opinion has come close to proving anything other then the Yankees spend a lot of money. I'm sorry you have to root for a team that is a joke and an embarrasment to organized sport, but that's not the Yankees' fault.

You've been proven wrong many times over the years in the FFA with this ridiculous nonsense. No point in re-hashing it for the twentieth time, just because you feel like it's some cause of yours.And I'm not sure the Rays are any more of an embarrasment than a team that makes a mockery of the sport and spends almost a 100 million dollars more than the third-highest spending team, but hasn't won a championship in seven years. That's pathetic.

 

[culdeus]

Pretty sure that NY payroll was over 200 million with Clemens.

You really should give this up. It's not a winning argument.

It was, you're right.As to your second point, not one single person of your opinion has come close to proving anything other then the Yankees spend a lot of money. I'm sorry you have to root for a team that is a joke and an embarrasment to organized sport, but that's not the Yankees' fault.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Interesting tidbit I just found out:The Colts 2006 payroll was $132 million - the highest in the NFLThe Raiders 06 payroll was $72 million - the lowest in the NFLThis is a $61 million dollar difference between the top team and the bottom team - with a salary cap and floor.The baseball numbers, again, were:New York Yankees $ 189,639,045 Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214 New York Mets $ 115,231,663 Los Angeles Angels $ 109,251,333 Chicago White Sox $ 108,671,833 Los Angeles Dodgers $ 108,454,524 Seattle Mariners $ 106,460,833 Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332 Detroit Tigers $ 95,180,369 Baltimore Orioles $ 93,554,808 St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823 San Francisco Giants $ 90,219,056 Philadelphia Phillies $ 89,428,213 Houston Astros $ 87,759,000 Atlanta Braves $ 87,290,833 Toronto Blue Jays $ 81,942,800 Oakland Athletics $ 79,366,940 Minnesota Twins $ 71,439,500 Milwaukee Brewers $ 70,986,500 Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980 Texas Rangers $ 68,318,675 Kansas City Royals $ 67,116,500 Cleveland Indians $ 61,673,267 San Diego Padres $ 58,110,567 Colorado Rockies $ 54,424,000 Arizona Diamondbacks $ 52,067,546 Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833 Washington Nationals $ 37,347,500 Florida Marlins $ 30,507,000 Tampa Bay Devil Rays $ 24,123,500Obviously, there is more then a $100 million dollar difference between the top and bottom, but for the sake of this argument, remove the top 2 teams who are so far ahead of everyone else, and the bottom 4 teams that are a joke to professional sports, and we have the Mets at $115 and the Diamonbacks at $52.That is a $63 million dollar difference without a cap or floor. And the bottom team in baseball made the NLCS while the bottom team in the NFL was a joke. I thought that was pretty interesting. I know no one will care because of the Yankees and Red Sox payroll disparity, but to me it looks like baseball is close. I'm wondering if the the best way to solve it is a lower luxury tax limit and a hard salary floor. That would still allow for the New York and Boston disparity, but the more they go above the line, the more the other teams get brought up, and with the floor they can be dragged there kicking and screaming if necessary.

so you eliminate the top 2 and bottom 4 to make your agruement?baseball needs a cap bro plain and simple. And you ONLY feel the other way cause it will HURT your team the most.

The Yankees have been successful in every economic model the sport has used. So that arugment is a waste. Further, I'm a fan of the game itself and don't want to see my team win every year because the league ends up like the Harlem Globetrotters' events.I eliminated those 6 teams for an obvious reason. The bottom 4 joke franchises should get just as much, if not more, of the "blame" for the disparity in the current economic model.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

As to your second point, not one single person of your opinion has come close to proving anything other then the Yankees spend a lot of money. I'm sorry you have to root for a team that is a joke and an embarrasment to organized sport, but that's not the Yankees' fault.

You've been proven wrong many times over the years in the FFA with this ridiculous nonsense. No point in re-hashing it for the twentieth time, just because you feel like it's some cause of yours.And I'm not sure the Rays are any more of an embarrasment than a team that makes a mockery of the sport and spends almost a 100 million dollars more than the third-highest spending team, but hasn't won a championship in seven years. That's pathetic.

I haven't been proven wrong at all. Saying over and over "The Yankees have a $200 million payroll," isn't proof of anything more then the Yankees having a $200 million payroll. Sorry.As to your second point - how to define mockery?

If it's pathetic to not win in 7 years using every thing at your disposal, then it must be equally encouraging to have so many lower payroll teams winning the title - you know, more different teams then the NFL in that time span.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Oh my god, is this really a thread arguing that salaries in baseball don't have a strong correlation to winning?

I don't have it anymore, but I put together a spreadsheet at one point summarizing the playoff teams over the past 5 or 7 years, and there was a HUGE correlation between making the playoffs and having a payroll in the top half of the league. It was something in the neighborhood of 75% or more of the playoff teams in those years were in at least the top half of the league. I wish I still had it. Just because a few lower payroll teams snuck in this year doesn't change that it's been a huge factor in the success of teams for the better part of the past decade.

I find it amazing to think that anyone with a little common sense can't see it. Sure, the teams that are poorly run and don't spend their money wisely are bad for the game too, but there's no reason why any team should be able to spend twice what 80% of the rest of the league spends on payroll. It's embarrassing that the Yankees haven't been able to turn the biggest competitive advantage in sports into a championship for seven years now.

 

[Darth Cheney]

Oh my god, is this really a thread arguing that salaries in baseball don't have a strong correlation to winning?

I don't have it anymore, but I put together a spreadsheet at one point summarizing the playoff teams over the past 5 or 7 years, and there was a HUGE correlation between making the playoffs and having a payroll in the top half of the league. It was something in the neighborhood of 75% or more of the playoff teams in those years were in at least the top half of the league. I wish I still had it. Just because a few lower payroll teams snuck in this year doesn't change that it's been a huge factor in the success of teams for the better part of the past decade.

I find it amazing to think that anyone with a little common sense can't see it. Sure, the teams that are poorly run and don't spend their money wisely are bad for the game too, but there's no reason why any team should be able to spend twice what 80% of the rest of the league spends on payroll. now.It's embarrassing that the Yankees haven't been able to turn the biggest competitive advantage in sports into a championship for seven years

Baseball's minor league system has alot to do with that. Beckett, K-Rod,Zumaya,Verlander,Carmona,Rafael Perez and John Lackey were all young pitchers uneligible for free agency.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Oh my god, is this really a thread arguing that salaries in baseball don't have a strong correlation to winning?

I don't have it anymore, but I put together a spreadsheet at one point summarizing the playoff teams over the past 5 or 7 years, and there was a HUGE correlation between making the playoffs and having a payroll in the top half of the league. It was something in the neighborhood of 75% or more of the playoff teams in those years were in at least the top half of the league. I wish I still had it. Just because a few lower payroll teams snuck in this year doesn't change that it's been a huge factor in the success of teams for the better part of the past decade.

I find it amazing to think that anyone with a little common sense can't see it. Sure, the teams that are poorly run and don't spend their money wisely are bad for the game too, but there's no reason why any team should be able to spend twice what 80% of the rest of the league spends on payroll. now.It's embarrassing that the Yankees haven't been able to turn the biggest competitive advantage in sports into a championship for seven years

Baseball's minor league system has alot to do with that. Beckett, K-Rod,Zumaya,Verlander,Carmona,Rafael Perez and John Lackey were all young pitchers uneligible for free agency.

That's a union and MLB thing. No reason any of those guys should be free agents. Are you suggesting that the Yankees should have an even further advantage by making guys with 2 years of service FAs? Also Carmona was an unsigned FA is 2000, K-Rod and Perez were amateur FA signings, Zumaya was taken in the 11th round, and Lackey in the 2nd. Yankees had a shot at all of them.

Also you'll never get Verlander. NEVER!

 

[Darth Cheney]

Oh my god, is this really a thread arguing that salaries in baseball don't have a strong correlation to winning?

I don't have it anymore, but I put together a spreadsheet at one point summarizing the playoff teams over the past 5 or 7 years, and there was a HUGE correlation between making the playoffs and having a payroll in the top half of the league. It was something in the neighborhood of 75% or more of the playoff teams in those years were in at least the top half of the league. I wish I still had it. Just because a few lower payroll teams snuck in this year doesn't change that it's been a huge factor in the success of teams for the better part of the past decade.

I find it amazing to think that anyone with a little common sense can't see it. Sure, the teams that are poorly run and don't spend their money wisely are bad for the game too, but there's no reason why any team should be able to spend twice what 80% of the rest of the league spends on payroll. now.It's embarrassing that the Yankees haven't been able to turn the biggest competitive advantage in sports into a championship for seven years

Baseball's minor league system has alot to do with that. Beckett, K-Rod,Zumaya,Verlander,Carmona,Rafael Perez and John Lackey were all young pitchers uneligible for free agency.

That's a union and MLB thing. No reason any of those guys should be free agents. Are you suggesting that the Yankees should have an even further advantage by making guys with 2 years of service FAs? Also Carmona was an unsigned FA is 2000, K-Rod and Perez were amateur FA signings, Zumaya was taken in the 11th round, and Lackey in the 2nd. Yankees had a shot at all of them.

Also you'll never get Verlander. NEVER!

No, what I'm saying is that quality minor league systems are one of the "defenses" against the free wheeling clubs and these pitchers were the primary reasons that the Yankees hadn't won a championship in seven years. When you think about the Yanks situation, 2001 and 2004 they were "out Yankeed" by teams that spent money... but the other years young, inexpensive talent played key roles in beating them.With the track record the Yankees have in the past seven years (which is when they really got out of hand with the money spending) I would figure some teams would want them to continue to spend money.

What do you want for Zumaya? Giambi or Damon?