Do we have competitive balance right now?

[sheethead]

The interchangability of NFL teams can be unappealing. A New York team in football is a generic team subject to maximized league control like all the other generic teams while in the less authoritarian structure of baseball the New York teams and all the others have some real life characteristics of their homes.

 

I would rather all the teams be generic than four to six of the teams being relevant and the other 24 irrelevant. Not that I agree that the NFL franchises are generic, because they absolutely have their own personality. Are they generic because they are all playing with 52 cards? Would it be less generic if we could take away half the cards from the Titans, Jaguars, and Packers? Does that really add pizazz and personality?

[bklynbrewcrew]

I love that the NFL has a salary cap and Im a Jets fan. I enjoy a league where good coaching and smart drafting helps you win not just who has the most money to spend. Also in the NFL every team keeps its franchise players and thats what most fans care about the most.

 

If we had a cap in baseball every team would have a chance. Right now the Brewers just cant compete year in and year out against teams like the yankees and red sox who have way more money.

[danzig6767]

Ender, I think most people would be okay with trading a player if it was something that helped their team get better. But what completely angers me is that trading players like Prince Fielder is often a necessity and not a choice. It absolutely infuriates me that Yankees and Red Sox fans don't have to face the same constraints. Those franchises get more choices and options . . . whereas for teams like ours, it feels like there is a gun to your head and you have to give up players you really don't want to. I just can't stand it.

 

In your example about the Packers having to give up a player because of cap room, you are forgetting that it is so much easier to swallow when you know all the other teams have to make the same decisions with the same cap. It feels VERY different in baseball and I completely disagree with your statement that there isn't much difference. In the NFL, everything seems the same for all the teams. As a fan, you feel like you are being treated fairly and equally. But in baseball, it feels like you are being crapped on over and over. There is a HUGE difference.

Yep

 

The NFL system doesn't punish small market teams who draft well like MLB does. The Packers haven't had to trade away a single quality young player that they really wanted to keep as that guy reached free agency, unlike the Brewers.

 

Greg Jennings was going to be a free agent after this year and as one of the better young WR's in the game, many teams would have went after him in free agency if available. Packer fans though never once had to endure the oh will we have the resources to be able to keep Jennings crap like we as Brewers fans have to fear whenever we develop a stud young player and he's nearing free agency. One of the best young QB's in the game Aaron Rodgers locked up also long term. Packer fans also don't have to fear some Scott Boras boogy man because he's the agent for one of the young good Packer players.

 

Yea, as the Packers got to be a good team over a number of years, here and there they had to let a player go as the team got pressed against the cap. That was a rare instance though and it never involved a young high quality talent reaching free agency. It's very rare that a small market NFL team loses a very high quality young player to free agency out of their inability to afford the player, it's only that player wanting to play elsewhere and even that's fairly rare.

 

No model is perfect, but as a fan of both the Brewers and Packers, it takes me less than a second to know i prefer the NFL model because i know that if the Packers draft and develop well any high quality young talents, they'll at the very least have the financial ability to keep them past free agency and i won't have to go through this nonsense like we Brewers fans face each time we have a young stud nearing free agency and talk ends up being which big market team will we have to trade our young stud to. It's beyond annoying and why i'm a bigger Packers fan that Brewers fan.

[sheethead]

Well said danzig. I am already thinking about where Escobar will end up in 4 or 5 years.

[danzig6767]

That could be us in a few years too if we have to say goodbye to hall-of-fame talents like Prince Fielder. These are the type of players you dream of drafting and you hate to give up the most. People won't even get excited in the future if we draft a good player because the guy will eventually leave and it will once again be a painful reminder that baseball doesn't care about people in cities like ours.

 

The scary part is this is a very likely scenario. Teams like the Brewers are unable to keep their homegrown talent. Biggest problem with the MLB by far. Melvin has his work cut out for him. The team and fan base are very fragile, and all it will take is a bad trade involving Prince Fielder and some more losing to knock the average attendance back down to 21K/game.

It's what bothers me most about MLB. I can live with not being able to afford not being able to keep any piece we want like say the Red Sox and Yankees can do, plus add quality players on top of it. What really blows though is how often small market teams have to sell off young studs they drafted and developed once free agency is near.

 

That's what's different between the NFL and MLB. The Packers didn't even have to consider trading off guys like Aaron Rodgers or Greg Jennings out of fear they might not be able to afford them once free agency would get near. If BJ Raji develops into a stud defensive lineman, i don't fear at all that we'll be short on financial resources to pay him. That stuff never even enters my thought process with young quality players the Packers draft.

 

With the Brewers though, we've been talking about when Fielder will need to be traded nearly since the day he proved to be an immense talent. Before Braun took that below market deal, fans were wondering by his second year in the league only if we'd have to trade him in a few years. Just imagine if Braun hadn't chose to take that 6 year deal, we'd all be terrified that it was likely a matter of when he'd need to be traded. It's ridiculous and so frustrating.

[logan82]

With the Brewers though, we've been talking about when Fielder will need to be traded nearly since the day he proved to be an immense talent.

 

That is because the assumption was he would be such a terrible fielder, he would have to be moved to DH within a couple years.

 

Before Braun took that below market deal, fans were wondering by his second year in the league only if we'd have to trade him in a few years.

 

Many fans don't realize how long teams have control of players before they can be free agents either. They also don't realize teams recieve compensation picks for losing free agents.

 

Just imagine if Braun hadn't chose to take that 6 year deal, we'd all be terrified that it was likely a matter of when he'd need to be traded. It's ridiculous and so frustrating.

 

Except for a select few top flight players, FA players are marginally better and much more expensive than bringing up prospects. I don't think most fans realize that by the time players hit free agency, most are past their prime or at the end of their prime years. Those long term deals seem nice when a player is signed, but more often than not once a player hits the last few years of the contract, they could easily be replaced by a younger player. I wish they would tweak the compensation a bit and improve the revenue sharing, but for the most part all the current system does is prevent us from wasting a lot of money.

[AJAY]

Logan, even if you think that signing a homegrown player to a long-term deal is a bad financial investment, I still want the Brewers and other small-market teams to have the CHOICE of being able to make those kind of investments even if they don't work out. You might think that the Brewers have a long time of control over their homegrown players, but the reality is that the large market teams have even much longer control over their homegrown players because they can entice them to stay with big money. Guys like Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, and Jorge Posada have now stayed with the Yankees for what seems like an eternity. Small market fans can't even think of having something like that.

 

Besides the pain of losing stars and having to suffer through constant rebuilding, how will small market teams ever end up with players in the hall-of-fame if all the best players are going to leave all the time. It's almost like too many cities are constantly being shutout from all the things that make the game special. This issue is really about the unfairness and the bitter feeling it creates. I deeply wish more people in the media, commissioner's office, and players union would understand and care about the misery of the fan experience rather than focusing on data about wins, losses, payrolls, and postseason appearances. The numbers just don't capture the human element involved.

 

By the way, I completely loved Danzig's comments about the difference in being a football fan vs. baseball fan. I don't follow football closely, but I don't recall ever seeing the Packers lose a player who they wanted to keep. Nobody ever once talked about trading away Brett Farve, Donald Driver, etc. These kind of discussions constantly dominate baseball and are almost non-exisitent in football.

 

It drives me insane that my sport hasn't been able to give the fans the peace of mind they strongly deserve.

[logan82]

Who have we lost recently that we wanted to keep? Sabathia and I wouldn't want him for the contract he was given.

 

Even with the money being equal there is always the draw of playing in a bigger city and there would be prestige franchises.

[danzig6767]

With the Brewers though, we've been talking about when Fielder will need to be traded nearly since the day he proved to be an immense talent.

 

That is because the assumption was he would be such a terrible fielder, he would have to be moved to DH within a couple years.

Yea his weight and the DH had something to do with the talk of when he'd have to be traded, but just as much or more had to do with who Fielder's agent is. Everyone knows that hometown discount doesn't exist in the world of Boras and thus, we'd never be able to come close to matching any free agent offer for Prince that a team like say the Yankees, Mets, Angels, or Red Sox would throw at him. This terrified thinking isn't just on the Brewers fans either. Fans of other small market teams often have to start stressing once any top young player near hits around his 4th year of service time, when are we going to have to trade him if he won't take a hometown discount. In the last 15 plus years following the Packers, not a single time has that thought process/fear entered my mind as a top young talent neared free agency that the team wouldn't have the resources to keep those young talents. Not once, but go ask fans of small market teams how much confidence they have about keeping their top young players.

 

Many fans don't realize how long teams have control of players before they can be free agents either. They also don't realize teams recieve compensation picks for losing free agents.

What are you talking about here? It's not exactly a CIA classified secret about how long teams can control a player along with compensation picks for losing free agents.

 

Except for a select few top flight players, FA players are marginally better and much more expensive than bringing up prospects. I don't think most fans realize that by the time players hit free agency, most are past their prime or at the end of their prime years. Those long term deals seem nice when a player is signed, but more often than not once a player hits the last few years of the contract, they could easily be replaced by a younger player. I wish they would tweak the compensation a bit and improve the revenue sharing, but for the most part all the current system does is prevent us from wasting a lot of money.

Yea, that system has thankfully saved all these small market teams from wasting money by keeping their own good younger players. Instead they've been able to trade away their really good players they drafted/developed and we've in turn seen all the winning it's lead to for the small market teams while the big market teams who acquire and then pay these players have suffered badly through so much more losing than these lucky to be small market franchises. The standings in most seasons prove this as the big market teams who can retain the players they develop and snatch away similar players from broke teams just toil at the bottom of the standings and while most small market teams who are saved from "wasting money" on players they developed usually win the playoff berths.

 

Obviously spending a bunch of cash won't guarantee winning in any professional sport. The Knicks in the NBA have long had a huge payroll and sucked royally via poor decisions on who they spent money on. Same in baseball, plenty of bigger market teams have spent quit lavishly and still didn't win. That usually though came more from going into free agency and spending to much on slightly better than average players and/or overspending on players in their 30's, not from keeping the players they drafted/developed. That's my biggest peeve with MLB. It's one thing for small market teams to not be able to shop in free agency like big market teams can, but what really sucks is that so many small market teams also end up having to trade away top young talents they developed once free agency nears simply because they can't make competitive financial offers, so they trade the guy away vs getting nothing but a draft pick or two in return. Draft picks that are from from a sure thing to pan out.

[logan82]

What are you talking about here? It's not exactly a CIA classified secret about how long teams can control a player along with compensation picks for losing free agents.

 

No it isn't classified, but it isn't exactly common knowledge either. How often have you read posts about fans worried about losing Fielder after 2010 because they don't realize he still has an arbitration year.

 

We never would have had CC if the current system wasn't how it is. How many of our current players would we realistically want to keep when they become free agents. Braun, Fielder and Gallardo. The rest are very replaceable. I think fans get to attached to players. I don't know why anybody worries about players leaving. If baseball had a system like the NFL, Fielder would have Rosenhaus as his agent and would be looking for the biggest contract he could get. We wouldn't likely have him anyway.

 

The Yankees would get the players no matter what.

[Buckhunts]

Everyone is so high on the NFL and its economic model, but don't forget they are on the verge of a huge labor talks. I could see this ending bad for the NFL (lookout). The NFL is the ultimate cash cow and the players know it. I think the biggest problem with a salary cap is that it will end the guaranteed contracts. Now that may sound good, but that will lead to hold outs, which is by far the thing I hate most about the NFL. I think that if baseball is serious about making a level playing field, they should start with a draft slotting system so people who have never even sniffed a major league field are not getting paid more then 5-year veterans in the middle of their prime. Second, if there is going to be a luxury tax, make it an effective one. Maybe have a tiered system, 10% of a payroll over $150 mil, 25% of a payroll over $175 mil, and 50% of a payroll over $200 mil. An international draft would also be a better way to help level the playing field. One thing I think I always admired about the economics of baseball is that it is a rather good model for the economic hardships of life. There are the haves and have nots in both baseball and life. Not that I like that it is that way, but I always thought it was one of the more interesting aspects of baseball.

[AJAY]

Logan, most people realize that Fielder will be gone after 2010 because the Brewers are not likely to keep him for 2011 if they determine he is not signable. They will likely be forced to trade him a year early so they can get something in return rather than watch him walk away for nothing a year later. I am assuming you might be the type of person who is pleased with what the Brewers get in return, but I would rather see the team have the choice of keeping him if that is what they determine is best. It's about having the same options as larger market teams and not being forced to make moves out of necessity.

 

I agree that we would not have had CC Sabathia if not for the current system. On a personal note, I was one of the first people to state how terrible I felt for the fans of Cleveland when he got traded here. And you might find it strange that fans get attached to players, but that is how it is and that is what builds a connection between fans and the game. Unfortunately, that connection is now being destroyed because of a terrible economic system that leaves people feeling bitter, hurt, disrespected, and abandoned.

 

And I don't understand your comment about how players would end up with the Yankees anyway even if MLB had a system like football. Do all the great NFL players end up with the NY Giants?

 

And while I agree that many of the players are replaceable, it's the ones you really want to keep that are unfortunately the hardest to keep. That is the biggest problem. If you feel Braun, Fielder, and Gallardo are the only ones worth keeping, then who do you think the big market teams are going to throw the big bucks at when free agency comes around?

[BillHall02]

Who have we lost recently that we wanted to keep? Sabathia and I wouldn't want him for the contract he was given.

 

While I certainly don't want them to spend foolishly, as a fan I don't really care how much they spend. It's simply not my money. Sure, there would be some novelty in saying my team beat the Yankees with 1/25 the payroll, but I could certainly settle for spending 1/2 the amount or heck even more if I lived to see a world series. As a Brewer fan, even at age 21, I am far from being sure that I will ever get to see that day. The Packers I am quite a bit more confident about.

[danzig6767]

What are you talking about here? It's not exactly a CIA classified secret about how long teams can control a player along with compensation picks for losing free agents.

 

No it isn't classified, but it isn't exactly common knowledge either. How often have you read posts about fans worried about losing Fielder after 2010 because they don't realize he still has an arbitration year.

 

We never would have had CC if the current system wasn't how it is. How many of our current players would we realistically want to keep when they become free agents. Braun, Fielder and Gallardo. The rest are very replaceable. I think fans get to attached to players. I don't know why anybody worries about players leaving. If baseball had a system like the NFL, Fielder would have Rosenhaus as his agent and would be looking for the biggest contract he could get. We wouldn't likely have him anyway.

 

The Yankees would get the players no matter what.

Based on what?

 

The Packers play in by far the smallest market in all of professional sports, yet can you name even just one really good player that they drafted/developed in the last 10-15 years that they didn't have the financial resources to keep if they had wanted to, including some that had Rosenhaus as his agent?

 

They did trade Javon Walker, but that wasn't because the Packers couldn't afford to pay him. They traded him because after being drafted he asked for a longer rookie contract so as to get a bigger signing bonus, then after getting it, a few years later he wanted his contract ripped up for a better one. The team told Walker that he had to play one more year under his rookie deal before he'd get an extension which lead to him holding out and an eventual trade. That's a far cry though from what the Brewers face with Fielder where they know that Boras will be able to shop Prince to the larger market teams once he hits free agency and thus, we'd never be able to make a competitive offer without in turn eating up to large of a percentage of our payroll. We could end up facing the same thing with Gallardo, especially if he continues his development to ace status, arguably the most valuable commodity in the game. There in lies my biggest problem with baseballs economics.

 

If though the Packers had the equivalent of a Fielder and Gallardo on their team a year or two from free agency, i'd have little to no fear about them being able to afford both given Green Bay would have the revenues to pay both and the salary cap prevents even big market NFL teams from just buying tons of players like the Yanks, Red Sox, and Mets can do. I know that the only way those type of young talents would leave the Packers wouldn't be because we couldn't afford them, it would only happen if they didn't like spending so much time in a tiny almost entirely white city. Hell, even with the tiny city status, i can't remember the last player who left by their own choice vs the team simply disagreeing on how good the player thought he was.

 

BTW, You brought up Sabbathia. Imagine how Cleveland fans feel. They draft and develop to young left-handed ace starters in CC/Lee, an incredibly hard thing to do, yet because of their small market status, had to pawn off both of them, something large market teams largely don't even have to consider. You don't see that as a bunch crap for the fans of Cleveland to have to deal with and that they won't be terrified the next time a young stud they develop gets anywhere near free agency?

[logan82]

I don't think Braun would even sign that contract with us if not for the current system. I think he would leave as soon as he could for an LA team. He wouldn't have had to wait 6 years to hit free agency in the NFL's system. He could have had a really good year or two and left. The only reason to take a contract like that is because the pre-arby years in baseball are so cheap for teams.

 

And I don't understand your comment about how players would end up with the Yankees anyway even if MLB had a system like football. Do all the great NFL players end up with the NY Giants?

 

It isn't about the city. It's about being a prestige franchise. The Yankees are one of those franchises. Danzig make it outr to be all about the money. There are other factors involved.

[sheethead]

He wouldn't have had to wait 6 years to hit free agency in the NFL's system.

 

Of course, that LA team would need to have available room under their cap in order to sign Braun in addition to having a spot for him in their outfield.

[bucks2281]

The Yankees would get the players no matter what.

 

Even though I believe you're overestimating the prestige factor, this scenario would not be possible with a salary cap. Even a richer than rich team like the Yankees would experience restraints on spending. They couldn't necessarily buy every FA they wanted to.

[Invader3K]

Exactly. The problem is right now the Yankees can spend like drunken sailors. They can make a huge mistake signing (like Kei Igawa) and then put that player aside if he doesn't work out, because his salary is still peanuts to them. Small market teams like the Brewers have nowhere close to that kind of flexibility.

[Tbadder]

Problem (overstated for effect):

 

1) MLB is not a sport (equal opportunity based on smarts and ability). It is entertainment. MLB is fixed. There's some variation, but essentially baseball must make happiest the most amount of people it can (big markets). True equality would kill MLB. MLB is New York, Boston, LA, Chicago. These are the only teams that could compete year in and year out. You really don't have to go any further. Throw in an anomaly (St. Louis) and no one can accuse you of having a rigged system.

 

Solutions:

 

2) There are too many MLB teams. That's the problem. They need to shutdown the bottom 25% immediately. This should be based on team revenues, TV revenues, etc.

3) Slotted hard cap world wide draft, there should only be 2 or 3 rounds, and anyone who doesn't sign can reapply for the draft in 6 years in the case of high schoolers or 5 years in the case of college players. Undrafted players are not eligble for roster spots.

4) All contracts of all MLB players are one year

5) no minor leagues, no developmental leagues, nothing

6) Rosters expanded to 50 players

7) 132 game schedule

8) Open books: the teams need to be required to show every penny earned and spent. They should also be required to spend 60% of revenue on players, 25% of the money should be in an escrow building fund, the rest for stadium improvements, administrative costs

9) no compensation for free agent loses obviously

[AJAY]

It isn't about the city. It's about being a prestige franchise. The Yankees are one of those franchises. Danzig make it outr to be all about the money. There are other factors involved.

 

I agree that a free agent might prefer to play for a "prestigious" franchise even if another team offered equal or more money. But the prestigious franchises would still have a limit on what they could spend and therefore good players would still have to sign with other teams as well. I also think that if baseball had an economic system similar to football, our perception of franchises would gradually change over time. When I was a kid, teams like the Royals and Orioles were considered extremely strong franchises. I know critics will say that these teams are "mismanaged", but they also don't have the luxury of buying CC Sabathia, Mark Texeira, AJ Burnett during the offseason if they want to instantly get better.

[logan82]

We still wouldn't be able to keep all of Gallardo, Braun and Fielder. All it would take is one team to beat our offer for a player to leave for more money. Milwaukee is probably one of the most backwater cities in MLB. We would still have to pay more for players than many other cities. Even if we were able to keep all of our players, our pitching would still stink this year.

[danzig6767]

We still wouldn't be able to keep all of Gallardo, Braun and Fielder. All it would take is one team to beat our offer for a player to leave for more money. Milwaukee is probably one of the most backwater cities in MLB. We would still have to pay more for players than many other cities.

Why don't the Packers then have to overpay to get players to stay in a city far less desirable to many pro athletes than even Milwaukee is? I don't know if you've ever been to Green Bay, but in terms of things to do, it makes Milwaukee look like New York. Yet, i never hear of players dying to bolt to play in a more exciting city or demanding extra money to be willing to stay. Hell, some have taken hometown discounts to make sure they can stay a Packer.

 

Granted, the Green Bay Packers are both a historic franchise in the NFL and have consistently won over the last 15 years, but a huge reason for that has been a league economic model which has allowed for the Packers to compete financially for players with the big market teams. Without that economic system in place, the Packer franchise would have become like the Brewers and other small market baseball teams, a talent feeder for the rich NFL franchises.

 

Another example is Pittsburgh. At one time, the Pirates were considered a great franchise in baseball, not a small market franchise. Yea, they've had terrible management since baseball became the haves and have nots, but it can't be denied that the economic model in baseball today makes them small market and hard to afford players as they reach free agency. On the flip side, the Steelers can compete financially from year to year in the NFL, able to always keep their core players. This has allowed them to become a model and highly successful franchise in the NFL, their good drafting rewarded by being able to keep their core players from year to year. Put baseball's system in place there, no chance the Steelers would have stayed a consistent powerhouse as they have in the current and past NFL.

 

A big reason top players leave small market franchises isn't the cities, it's hope. They know that even if their small market team makes a competitive offer, it will eat up a large chunk of that teams payroll, thus limiting that team and his chance at sustained success. Most athletes want to not just get paid, they want the chance to win. But because of the economic system in the NFL, players are willing to stay in small market franchises because they know that those teams can still win each year if management does a good job, those teams have the financial resources to keep and add quality players. Much less need for top players to flee to large market teams if they want to win.

[Invader3K]

Problem (overstated for effect):

 

...

Wow, you would have made a good wartime general during World War II or something. Scorched earth policy, if I ever saw one.

[BillHall02]

I think danzig makes a HUGE point about hope. No player really wants to be the guy that takes up 1/3 of a payroll, and the reason they can't afford any talent around him. They would rather make an equal amount and have a chance at a nice ring, too. As far as the whole prestige thing, I would have to imagine the Arizona Cardinals have as little of it as any NFL team could, and yet they managed to resign Larry Fitzgerald. Heck, they even managed to make the Super Bowl last year. Whether or not the system is can or should be fixed is one question, but there is no question it isn't fair to small market teams.

[colbyjack]

My associate at Perfect Game, Allan Simpson, has scribed an incredible two-part story addressing, as he puts it, an uninspiring 2009 season, and a troubled overall state of the game. He adds several suggestions of how to change it, from top to bottom, doing so in the second part pointing to the NHL (not the more popular comparisons to the NFL and NBA). You may not agree with some of his points, but you have to give him a lot of credit for the amount of time and effort he put into this feature. Please take the time to read both of these from beginning to end:

 

Part 1

Part 2