Would you take a year off to see a salary cap/floor...

[JohnBriggs12]

Why does there have to be no baseball? In 1987, the NFL put together rosters and played games after the players walked out and guess what, the players came back in mass because they had something to come back to and there's been no labor stoppage for 23 years.

 

With all the professional baseball leagues (affiliated or otherwise), there's an extremely large pool of players that would play for minimum major league salaries, if even for a few weeks. Heck baseball had readied for that in 1995, but chickened out and caved. Nonetheless a few guys recruited to be replacements parlayed that exposure they received that spring into major league careers of varying lengths. The Brewers kept Ron Rightnower from that spring "scab" squad and of course we all remember Damien Miller.

 

Now granted the baseball would be inferior, but if it's competitive and priced right, some fans will show up. Fans showed up to watch replacement NFL teams of guys virtually off the street because a) the games counted and b) people love football. It's logistically a lot easier to put together a baseball team.

[joepepsi]

In other words, it's just possible this inequity is working itself out

 

I think you're correct in your scenario, which means the inequity is working itself out among small and mid-market teams, but the "Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and a handful of others" still get all the Hall of Fame players.

Except that "Red Sox, Angels and a handful of others" are picking and choosing which HOF players they pursue. Even the Yankees to an extent last winter shied away from signing the big names just because they can. The Bostons and Angels seem to have decided it's better to develop their own players and try and keep them, while limiting their pursuit of premium free agents.

[GAME05]

In other words, it's just possible this inequity is working itself out

I think you're correct in your scenario, which means the inequity is working itself out among small and mid-market teams, but the "Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and a handful of others" still get all the Hall of Fame players.

definitely. i miss the days when it wasn't rare for a player to stay with the same team for his whole career, and the city would benefit by it from building that city hero. you can't allow yourself to get too attached to players anymore because you know you'll have to root against them someday. i actually think that's a big reason that Brewer fans haven't embraced Fielder as much as they have Braun.

 

i'm ironically rooting for the Yankees to win a whole bunch of World Series in a row because maybe it will lead to fans and players getting sick of it and finally doing something about it.

[Tbadder]

In my world, since I now know that this game called baseball is really a geopolitical struggle between the forces of goodness (free marketers) and evil (revenue sharers) then I should be free to overthrow the government (MLB or any one team) as stipulated in the constitution--hopefully in a debilitating bloody coup that causes decades of fascist rule. Get real guys, the free market--especially in sports simply doesn't exist, except in the little game we play in our brains or over talk radio late at night with all the other kooks! Lets improve the game and its competitiveness. That's what sports is about--not philosophical drivel about the nature of freedom.

[FVBrewerFan]

Better watch out though, the Tea Baggers might cut the gas line to your house if you keep spoutin' these Commie ideas on the internets.

Please leave your condescending, narrow-minded, and simplistic rants in the political forum where it belongs. Thanks.

 

 

[joepepsi]

Better watch out though, the Tea Baggers might cut the gas line to your house if you keep spoutin' these Commie ideas on the internets.

Please leave your condescending, narrow-minded, and simplistic rants in the political forum where it belongs. Thanks.

 

It was a joke.

 

Reply #24 on this topic makes negative implications towards Obama. I see that post is allowed without comment or accusation of being "narrow-minded".

 

I like this board a lot and mean no disrespect to the rules which govern it, but I've noticed in the past comments which are or aren't allowed are subject to the political whims of whoever may be moderating at the time.

 

In the future I will refrain from attempts at humor.

[FVBrewerFan]

Better watch out though, the Tea Baggers might cut the gas line to your house if you keep spoutin' these Commie ideas on the internets.

Please leave your condescending, narrow-minded, and simplistic rants in the political forum where it belongs. Thanks.

 

It was a joke.

 

Reply #24 on this topic makes negative implications towards Obama. I see that post is allowed without comment or accusation of being "narrow-minded".

 

I like this board a lot and mean no disrespect to the rules which govern it, but I've noticed in the past comments which are or aren't allowed are subject to the political whims of whoever may be moderating at the time.

 

In the future I will refrain from attempts at humor.

You're right. "Selig equals Obama" doesn't belong in the MLB forum either. But there's nothing humorous about a term that's insulting and vulgar like "tea baggers." It's hard for all of us to check politics at the door, and I'm thin-skinned about it. It's just that term you used that took it too far, IMHO. But I'm not a moderator, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[Invader3K]

That's what sports is about--not philosophical drivel about the nature of freedom.

I agree. If baseball was truly a "free market" system, the Brewers would be able to re-locate to New York and directly compete with the Yankees and Mets, or at the very least acquire TV rights there to broadcast their games on a local station to reach more fans. Since neither of those possibilities are allowed under MLB guidelines, to pretend this is a free market system is silly.

 

At the very least, I think there are obvious steps MLB could take to make things a little bit more even. Steps like re-aligning the divisions to balance them, fixing the draft system, and perhaps expanding the playoffs would all put small market teams on more of an even footing with the big market clubs.

 

People also ignore that while the NFL has a salary cap, they also don't have guaranteed contracts. If MLB contracts weren't guaranteed, you wouldn't need to worry about a salary cap. Unfortunately, the owners shot themselves in the foot with that one.

[RobertR]

FWIW, I think MLB Media and the internet is going to go a long way in the long term to even out some of the revenue disparities. (Also, I think people have a distorted idea of capitalism. Guaranteeing a profit for an owner, regardless of competence, isn't a part of free market capitalism. Heck, fans deserting the Brewers like a sinking ship under the reign of Wendy Selig-Prieb is part of capitalism that protects the fan. The NFL also has the Bidwell, Brown, and McCaskey families entrenched for decades.)

 

And, I'll put forth that the first 6 years of a baseball player's career in the majors are a massive restriction on his free market rights. That also seems to be conveniently forgotten.

 

I will agree that there are certain things that could be done though to help. More revenue can be shared. The draft could be tweaked to ensure that the best prospects go to the worst teams. Perhaps it could be permissable for some of the worst teams to pool their resources in forming Latin America academies. Baseball is unique in many ways and there's more to building a team than free agency.

 

And, heck, I'm not sure competitive balance in football is as much cap related as it is that the career of most NFL players is extremely short due to injuries and wear and tear. How many NFL players even make it 6 years? The NBA has a cap too, and it has competitive balance problems simply because roster turnover is very limited.

 

Robert

[FVBrewerFan]

I think we need to realize that a pro sports league is different than most companies. Yes, there are an avg of 30 teams in pro sports, but we often forget those are franchises. I don't think there's anything anti-capitalism about creating fair competition among the franchises. It's not like a typical marketplace where the Royals can decide to go elsewhere. They have to compete in MLB or go under. Now, some would argue that's exactly what SHOULD happen. And I'm not sure contraction is such a bad idea. But all that does is move the "have nots" up a notch.

 

Now, I don't like the irection the NFL has gone- but that has more to do with the rules than anything else. I think they want to appeal to the masses by having indoor football-esque 48-47 games. That's not football. But nobody can argue every team in the NFL has a chance to win the Super Bowl. An EQUAL chance? Probably not. But a realistic chance.

 

To answer the original question, yes, I would forego a season if a cap was put into place. BUT, it would have to be ana greement that lasted 10 years. It wouldn't be worth giving up a season for an agreement that only lasted 3-5 years. The Yankees would whine, but they would still have an advantage. They could pump all that extra revenue into the farm system, plus they would still be the #1 destination for many great players- just because of the tradition and chances of winning it all. Much the way NFL players took lessor contracts to play for the Pats in their hay day, etc.

 

I also like the NBA rule, where the team that has a star player can give a max contract.

[Mr Southpaw]

Joe and FV

 

I am sorry I spoke with any examples that did not associate with baseball to offend either of you. It is hard to make a point without using some sort of examples.

[Tbadder]

I must say I liked the idea of putting more teams in New York and New England. In the English Premier League London has the equivalent of five major league teams because there's the fan base to support it. There's lots of problems with the EPL too, but it's a fascinating idea. I always thought the better idea would be to cut the amount of major league teams. Now I'm thinking of reversing myself. What if teams were establish on geographical area with similar populations. I know it won't be possible given the long tradition, but it would be interesting to think it through and see if relatively similar revenues could be generated under this scenario.

[Invader3K]

I'd love to see either a current team (A's?) or an expansion team located in "New Jersey".

[jeffy]

Yes, if Baltimore could be "forced" to accept the Expos moving into their territory, why not force the Yankees and Mets to accept a team in NJ?

Some other options would be Connecticut, upstate NY, Long Island, and Brooklyn (The Bronx and Queens each have a team, so why shouldn't Brooklyn's 2.5 million residents have their own team, once again?)

[joepepsi]

Joe and FV

 

I am sorry I spoke with any examples that did not associate with baseball to offend either of you. It is hard to make a point without using some sort of examples.

I'm the one guilty of taking this too far. In the future I'll avoid posting something with a political flavor. This is a good topic and I was wrong to let it slide off kilter. So, let's get back to the topic.

[Invader3K]

Yes, if Baltimore could be "forced" to accept the Expos moving into their territory, why not force the Yankees and Mets to accept a team in NJ?

Some other options would be Connecticut, upstate NY, Long Island, and Brooklyn (The Bronx and Queens each have a team, so why shouldn't Brooklyn's 2.5 million residents have their own team, once again?)

If there's talk of Brooklyn getting an NBA team, why not an MLB team? Either way, the New York area could easily support a third team, and anything to give the Yankees and Mets some added competition would be a good thing.

[endaround]

Because while MLB was willing to pay off the Orioles, a New York team would likely involve payoffs to 3 teams, the Yankees, Mets and Phillies. And since MLB has been operating on a Super-Super-majority basis (25 votes of ownership for the big things) you're already half way to blocking the move.

[FVBrewerFan]

Well, Brooklyn's NBA team will be the Nets right? So it's not like the metro area is getting a 3rd team, it's just the Nets relocating. A 3rd MLB team in the NY metro area would be tough. You're not going to peel away many Yankee fans, maybe some Mets fans. Plus, as End satted, no way the Yanks,Mets, Phils let that happen.

[Mr Southpaw]

I was talking to a friend today about this whole idea and he said, "How about ending guaranteed salaries, maybe something like guaranteeing only half of the salary." It would make it a lot easier for small market teams to sign their stars long term.

[jeffy]

Because while MLB was willing to pay off the Orioles, a New York team would likely involve payoffs to 3 teams, the Yankees, Mets and Phillies. And since MLB has been operating on a Super-Super-majority basis (25 votes of ownership for the big things) you're already half way to blocking the move.

First we repeal the antitrust exemption...

[FVBrewerFan]

I don't think ending guarantedd contracts solves the problem. Look at the Brewers/Fielder situation. Sure, being locked in long term is one reason they would shy away from a mega-contract. But even if Fielder's contract wsn't guaranteed, there's just no way they can/should dedicate $25MM a year for one player. So even if that contract wsn't guaranteed, the Brewers couldn't/shouldn't make that deal.

[joepepsi]

What's the point of a contract if it's not guaranteed? If it isn't guaranteed, then a player is more likely to sign a one year, $100 million deal with Yankees than a 5 year/$100 million deal with the Brewers, right?

[NievesNoNO]

No, While I think its unfair, I actually like the giants vs the underdog type stuff. However, I think there has to be something done to level the playing field a bit. A world draft, and revenue sharing would be a good start, but I don't think there needs to be a work stoppage for that. A salary cap might have some positives, but a floor I don't believe really benefits the game much. Forcing a team to spend money just to spend it doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe upping FA signing compensation would help as well.

[Mr Southpaw]

I don't get the logic, Joe.

 

If a player signs a $100 mill contract for one year, he gets paid $100 mill for one years work. If a player signs a five year $100 mill contract and goes blind after the first year, he get $20 mill for the first year plus another $40 mill over the nest four years. He gets a guaranteed portion of he contract and the club does not get stuck with the entire contract for work not completed.

[TooLiveBrew]

I'd love to see either a current team (A's?) or an expansion team located in "New Jersey".

Just curious... why the quotes?