Collective Bargaining Agreementâ?¦ Latest: agreement announced (reply #109)

[KCBrewerfan34]

Parity in football has alot to do with the scheduling, teams that finish lats play very easy schedules the next year.

[endaround]

No scheduling has very little to do with it. You play each team in your division twice, that's 6 games. You play all teams in one division of the other conference, that's 4 games (for the Packers that's the AFC West this year). Then you play all teams in one division in your conference (for the Packers that's the NFC South) for another 4 games. That's 14 games, leaving 2 games to be scheduled by division finish against the 2 other divisions in your conference.

[kramnoj]

I think the argument is pretty coherent. The difference between the largest payroll team and smallest payroll team is about $175 million.

 

That's not that much of a problem, as the teams that are at the bottom aren't trying that hard to win.

 

There is a massive payroll difference, but you haven't actually shown how much that is an actual advantage. Teams that have smart talent in the front office making smart moves are going to have a shot at the playoffs, and I think they probably have just as good a chance as teams who spend massive amounts of money and spend it poorly.

 

If you don't think that there is a definite and clear advantage to big market teams in baseball, then you must have just become a Brewer fan this year.

 

I'm not even really sure how this makes sense. The Brewers made it to the playoffs in 2008 and the Mets didn't.

[Baldkin]

Burnett, Soriano, Jeter, Posada made a total of 55 million last year, and combined for less than 3 rWAR.

Their bad payroll was 60% of the Brewers TOTAL payroll.

To suggest that a big market team does not have an advantage is ludicrous. Just because a small market team can compete on occasion, does not mean they can compete year in and year out with big spending, well run teams like Boston, NYY and LAA.

 

Saying a badly run team can't compete isn't important. No matter if they spend $30M or 300M a poorly run team will have a hard time competing. The difference is, if Braun's contract turns out to be like Jeter's (a 1-win player) there is a much lower chance of the Brewers competing, because they can't just absorb that contract.

[nate82]

You can't compare the NFL to MLB at all. The cap in the NFL has very little to do with the parity in the NFL. In the NFL all you need to win is a great QB. Look at the Colts this year without Manning. Salary cap or no salary cap the NFL would be the same. All you need in the NFL is a great QB and you are set. The salary caps have very little to do with a team winning or being competitive.

[kramnoj]

Burnett, Soriano, Jeter, Posada made a total of 55 million last year, and combined for less than 3 rWAR.

Their bad payroll was 60% of the Brewers TOTAL payroll.

To suggest that a big market team does not have an advantage is ludicrous.

 

I think you should re-examine those sentences before throwing around words like ludicrous. Because one of the disadvantages of having a huge payroll is that agents and players know there is money to spend and will wait until they get the money they want, because they know they can. That means that players will be overpaid, decreasing the monetary advantage.

 

Just because a small market team can compete on occasion, does not mean they can compete year in and year out with big spending, well run teams like Boston, NYY and LAA.

 

The Brewers have more playoff appearances as the Angels and Red Sox over the last 2 years.

[Baldkin]

Burnett, Soriano, Jeter, Posada made a total of 55 million last year, and combined for less than 3 rWAR.

Their bad payroll was 60% of the Brewers TOTAL payroll.

To suggest that a big market team does not have an advantage is ludicrous.

 

I think you should re-examine those sentences before throwing around words like ludicrous. Because one of the disadvantages of having a huge payroll is that agents and players know there is money to spend and will wait until they get the money they want, because they know they can. That means that players will be overpaid, decreasing the monetary advantage.

 

Just because a small market team can compete on occasion, does not mean they can compete year in and year out with big spending, well run teams like Boston, NYY and LAA.

 

The Brewers have more playoff appearances as the Angels and Red Sox over the last 2 years.

The Red Sox haven't finished under .500 since 1997, and the Yankees haven't since 1992, the Angels have had 1 season under .500 under their current regime, the last 10 seasons.

A well run team with a higher payroll has a huge advantage over a well run team with a low payroll. If you can develop internal talent at the same rate as other teams, and augment that talent with the best pieces you need via free agency, how is that not an advantage?

[nate82]

A salary cap in baseball will just not work nor will it ever be a possibility. If MLB wanted to have a salary cap they missed the boat on this one as the best chance to get a salary cap was back in the 1970-1980's. It is way to late for a salary cap now. The only other option that is on the table is for more equal revenue sharing between the large market teams and the small market teams. The Red Sox, Yankees, and other big market teams have an advantage over small market teams in terms of free agents but that is it. Small market teams can take advantage of the large market teams through trades and other maneuvers that they can do. Plus the majority of free agents are passed their prime or just at their prime and will be declining through the majority of their contract. The Rays have been competitive and have actually built a long lasting team that will be better than the Yankees down the road. There are a few ways to build a club in MLB one way is through free agency that is the pricey way another way is through the farm system and trades/free agent signings and yet another is just through your farm system. In the NFL the only way to build a team is to get a great QB through the draft. To me the NFL is really just about the QB if you take Rodgers away from the Packers they will suck and no salary cap is going to fix that. The NFL is a QB league and if you do not have a good to a great QB your team is going to suck. Now also decrease the amount of teams that get into the playoffs for the NFL and you will see even less parity in the league.

[kramnoj]

The Red Sox haven't finished under .500 since 1997, and the Yankees haven't since 1992, the Angels have had 1 season under .500 under their current regime, the last 10 seasons.

 

Why is finishing over .500 now the conversation? Spending as much money as those teams do and just having a winning record is a disappointment, not proof that the system is broken.

 

If you can develop internal talent at the same rate as other teams, and augment that talent with the best pieces you need via free agency, how is that not an advantage?

 

I haven't said it's not an advantage. I just don't see it as a problem, because not all big money clubs are run wisely, and because teams who spend and do so wisely can compete.

 

Over the last 4 years

 

Brewers 2 playoff appearances

Rays 3 playoff appearances

Twins 2 playoff apperances

Dbacks 1 playoff appearance

Rangers 2 playoff appearances (they have been a mid level payroll team the last 2 years)

 

Red Sox 2 playoff appearances

Angels 2 playoff appearances

Dodgers 2 playoff appearances

Cubs 1 playoff appearance

Mets 0 playoff appearance

 

When I see that, I don't see a broken system that prevents teams that are trying to win from doing so.

[Patrick425]

The Red Sox haven't finished under .500 since 1997, and the Yankees haven't since 1992, the Angels have had 1 season under .500 under their current regime, the last 10 seasons.

 

Why is finishing over .500 now the conversation? Spending as much money as those teams do and just having a winning record is a disappointment, not proof that the system is broken.

 

If you can develop internal talent at the same rate as other teams, and augment that talent with the best pieces you need via free agency, how is that not an advantage?

 

I haven't said it's not an advantage. I just don't see it as a problem, because not all big money clubs are run wisely, and because teams who spend and do so wisely can compete.

 

Over the last 4 years

 

Brewers 2 playoff appearances

Rays 3 playoff appearances

Twins 2 playoff apperances

Dbacks 1 playoff appearance

Rangers 2 playoff appearances (they have been a mid level payroll team the last 2 years)

 

Red Sox 2 playoff appearances

Angels 2 playoff appearances

Dodgers 2 playoff appearances

Cubs 1 playoff appearance

Mets 0 playoff appearance

 

When I see that, I don't see a broken system that prevents teams that are trying to win from doing so.

So, if Attanasio were to state that the Brewers were going to increase their payroll to $150 million next year would that excite you? Would you think that would give them a better opportunity to be successful than with their current payroll of $90 million? I'm not sure how you could possibly answer no to that with a straight face.

 

In your example in you last post you conveniently left out Philly and NYY (the top two teams in terms of payroll and two of a handful of teams that drive and control the FA market). You keep bringing up period of 2 years or 4 years. I would be willing to bet that if you compiled the data over a 20 year period you would find that the majority of teams in the playoffs over that period come from the top 10 payroll teams each year. Maybe even the top 8.

[Patrick425]

You can't compare the NFL to MLB at all. The cap in the NFL has very little to do with the parity in the NFL. In the NFL all you need to win is a great QB. Look at the Colts this year without Manning. Salary cap or no salary cap the NFL would be the same. All you need in the NFL is a great QB and you are set. The salary caps have very little to do with a team winning or being competitive.

Maybe you are correct in regards to QBs being a huge factor in the NFL, but at the same time how are "small market" teams like Indy and GB able to retain these great QBs year after year? That's my argument and I firmly believe the salary cap is a huge part of that. If that's not the answer to why these teams can continue to keep these guys, I'd like to know what is. Why is there never any talk of Green Bay possibly losing Rogers to free agency? How were they able to retain Farve all those years?

 

NFL team salaries pretty much range from $80 million to $140 million with 19 teams being between $100 million and $130 million. Doesn't this sound like a much fairer system than one that has team salaries ranging from $40 million to $210 million. I'm not sure why everyone is eager to find all sorts of reasons why there is greater parity in the NFL that are not payroll related. To me it just seems logical that you are going to have a more level playing field when there is less deviation between the team's payrolls. Why is this so hard to admit?

[kramnoj]

So, if Attanasio were to state that the Brewers were going to increase their payroll to $150 million next year would that excite you? Would you think that would give them a better opportunity to be successful than with their current payroll of $90 million? I'm not sure how you could possibly answer no to that with a straight face.

 

If you can find anywhere where I said money isn't an advantage, please let me know. I've said I don't think it represents a problem.

 

In your example in you last post you conveniently left out Philly and NYY (the top two teams in terms of payroll and two of a handful of teams that drive and control the FA market).

 

I've already said money is an advantage, saying that NYY and the Phillies are doing well doesn't add anything to this conversation. But it is interesting that the Rays have made the playoffs the same amount of times the last 4 years as the Yankees, despite the massive payroll difference that you say presents such an advantage that it is a problem.

[nate82]

You can't compare the NFL to MLB at all. The cap in the NFL has very little to do with the parity in the NFL. In the NFL all you need to win is a great QB. Look at the Colts this year without Manning. Salary cap or no salary cap the NFL would be the same. All you need in the NFL is a great QB and you are set. The salary caps have very little to do with a team winning or being competitive.

Maybe you are correct in regards to QBs being a huge factor in the NFL, but at the same time how are "small market" teams like Indy and GB able to retain these great QBs year after year? That's my argument and I firmly believe the salary cap is a huge part of that. If that's not the answer to why these teams can continue to keep these guys, I'd like to know what is. Why is there never any talk of Green Bay possibly losing Rogers to free agency? How were they able to retain Farve all those years?

 

NFL team salaries pretty much range from $80 million to $140 million with 19 teams being between $100 million and $130 million. Doesn't this sound like a much fairer system than one that has team salaries ranging from $40 million to $210 million. I'm not sure why everyone is eager to find all sorts of reasons why there is greater parity in the NFL that are not payroll related. To me it just seems logical that you are going to have a more level playing field when there is less deviation between the team's payrolls. Why is this so hard to admit?

Easy it is one player that they have to lock up and it is a lot easier to lock up one player than it is multiple players. If Rodgers absolutely hates Green Bay he may leave for free agency and will get about the same as he would from any other team in the NFL as he would from the Packers. The only thing that allows Green Bay to do this is because they can afford to tie up 15-25% of their player salaries in one player unlike any other small market team in MLB. If a small market team did this in MLB they would have to rely on their farm system for the holes while in the NFL it really wouldn't matter as they would be relying on that one elite level talent if that talent is a QB. The recipe for success in the NFL is draft or trade for an elite level QB if you do this you will be competitive as long as that QB is healthy. There really isn't a more level playing field in the NFL. If you can prove that there is a level playing field because of the salary cap go ahead and do so but I have found that that the NFL would still have the same recipe for success if it had a salary cap or if it didn't have a salary cap. You are still talking about one player the salary cap doesn't help a team keep a player on their team. How did the salary cap help the Packers keep Farve all those years?

[bill hAll Star]

The NFC has had, what, 10 different teams make the Super Bowl in the past decade? I realize the MLB has had an array of representatives, but it's way harder to climb up from the depths in baseball.

 

And yeah, we've got teams like the Patriots, Steelers, Eagles that always seem to be in the mix every year. But the Yankees/Red Sox basically have the thing on lock every year to get into the playoffs. If they screw up, they buy their way back in. The Cubs are going to flip the switch soon because of their money.

 

Miami is bad, Indy is bad. Ask me who I think is going to climb back up from the depths and I'll tell you that I have no idea (let's just assume Peyton Manning is done for his career or something, that is a bit of a bad example). In baseball, you tell me that the Cubs are bad and the Padres are bad, I'll put all my chips on the Cubs reviving things.

 

The NFL has some great parity. At the time of the recent CBA, they really only had one focus at keeping it and to be honest I think they screwed that up:

 

Banning Ted Thompson from the NFL.

[Patrick425]

nate82[/b]]

nate82[/b]]You can't compare the NFL to MLB at all. The cap in the NFL has very little to do with the parity in the NFL. In the NFL all you need to win is a great QB. Look at the Colts this year without Manning. Salary cap or no salary cap the NFL would be the same. All you need in the NFL is a great QB and you are set. The salary caps have very little to do with a team winning or being competitive.

Maybe you are correct in regards to QBs being a huge factor in the NFL, but at the same time how are "small market" teams like Indy and GB able to retain these great QBs year after year? That's my argument and I firmly believe the salary cap is a huge part of that. If that's not the answer to why these teams can continue to keep these guys, I'd like to know what is. Why is there never any talk of Green Bay possibly losing Rogers to free agency? How were they able to retain Farve all those years?

 

NFL team salaries pretty much range from $80 million to $140 million with 19 teams being between $100 million and $130 million. Doesn't this sound like a much fairer system than one that has team salaries ranging from $40 million to $210 million. I'm not sure why everyone is eager to find all sorts of reasons why there is greater parity in the NFL that are not payroll related. To me it just seems logical that you are going to have a more level playing field when there is less deviation between the team's payrolls. Why is this so hard to admit?

Easy it is one player that they have to lock up and it is a lot easier to lock up one player than it is multiple players. If Rodgers absolutely hates Green Bay he may leave for free agency and will get about the same as he would from any other team in the NFL as he would from the Packers. The only thing that allows Green Bay to do this is because they can afford to tie up 15-25% of their player salaries in one player unlike any other small market team in MLB. If a small market team did this in MLB they would have to rely on their farm system for the holes while in the NFL it really wouldn't matter as they would be relying on that one elite level talent if that talent is a QB. The recipe for success in the NFL is draft or trade for an elite level QB if you do this you will be competitive as long as that QB is healthy. There really isn't a more level playing field in the NFL. If you can prove that there is a level playing field because of the salary cap go ahead and do so but I have found that that the NFL would still have the same recipe for success if it had a salary cap or if it didn't have a salary cap. You are still talking about one player the salary cap doesn't help a team keep a player on their team. How did the salary cap help the Packers keep Farve all those years?

So, you don't think that a sport that has a team salary range between $80 million and $140 million (with the majority of teams falling between the $100-$130 range) is inherently more competitive than a sport who's range is from $40 million to $210 million? You don't think if a handful of teams in the NFL had the financial ability to raise their payrolls to $200+ million, while the Packers and others were financially restricted to staying below $130 or so that Rogers could get paid far more somewhere else?

 

 

[Patrick425]

kramnoj[/b]]So, if Attanasio were to state that the Brewers were going to increase their payroll to $150 million next year would that excite you? Would you think that would give them a better opportunity to be successful than with their current payroll of $90 million? I'm not sure how you could possibly answer no to that with a straight face.

 

If you can find anywhere where I said money isn't an advantage, please let me know. I've said I don't think it represents a problem.

 

In your example in you last post you conveniently left out Philly and NYY (the top two teams in terms of payroll and two of a handful of teams that drive and control the FA market).

 

I've already said money is an advantage, saying that NYY and the Phillies are doing well doesn't add anything to this conversation. But it is interesting that the Rays have made the playoffs the same amount of times the last 4 years as the Yankees, despite the massive payroll difference that you say presents such an advantage that it is a problem.

I understand that you never said that money wasn't an advantage, just like I never said that a small market team could never be competitive. However, you seem to be downplaying just how big of an advantage the big market teams have. Imagine if the Brewers had the ability to raise thier payroll by $50 million (which, by the way, would still be about $70 mil below NY and $30 mil below Philly). They would be able to retain Fielder, long term Grienke, and be in the market for Sabathia. I don't know about you, but that would make me feel a lot better (not just a little) about next year.

 

You stated that there are different ways to improve your team. I believe you mentioned trades, building a farm system, or going through the FA market. Doesn't it bother you that the 3rd option is really not viable for the Brewers but is really only an option for a handful of teams? Doesn't it bother you that every off season there are 2 - 4 free agents that the Brewers and many other teams can't even begin to consider? Doesn't it bother you that the Phillies have the option to add a guy like Cliff Lee to their roster without giving up anyone in return, while the Brewers only option is to give up their top prospects if they want to land this type of a player?

 

The term "all in" was used a lot this year to describe Melvin and the Brewers. You never hear that in reference to the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, Mets, White Sox, Giants, because they are all in every year. Every year their fans can believe that their team has a legitimate shot at winning the World Series. Doesn't mean it will always happen or that they will even make the playoffs, but they never have to fret about only having a short "window of opportunity".

 

 

[kramnoj]

Doesn't it bother you that every off season there are 2 - 4 free agents that the Brewers and many other teams can't even begin to consider?

 

No. The big free agents sign contracts that won't match their performance for the most part.

 

You never hear that in reference to the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, Mets, White Sox, Giants, because they are all in every year.

 

If you think the Mets and White Sox and Giants are all in every year, then I think we've identified the problem here. Your perception is not matching the actual situation.

[Patrick425]

Your perception is not matching the actual situation.

Well, I could say the exact same for you. It's obvious that we both think each other's perception is off. That you state it as if it's a fact shows a bit of arrogance on your part if you ask me.

 

 

 

[kramnoj]

That you state it as if it's a fact shows a bit of arrogance on your part if you ask me.

 

I'm not the one that has said that others are fooling themselves.

 

My statement is clearly a fact - The White Sox have made the playoffs once in the last 4 years, the Giants once, the Mets none. So the Brewers have as many playoff appearances the last 4 years as those other 3 teams do, combined.

 

What evidence is there to support your notion that those 3 teams are all in every year?

[nate82]

So, you don't think that a sport that has a team salary range between $80 million and $140 million (with the majority of teams falling between the $100-$130 range) is inherently more competitive than a sport who's range is from $40 million to $210 million?

 

No there is no proof that the sport with a salary cap is more competitive. Maybe if there were two baseball leagues and one had a salary cap and the other didn't you could make this argument. By comparing MLB and NFL there is only one comparison and that they are both sports and that is it. The cap in the NFL does not equal parity nor does it create an equal playing field. Why haven't the Browns been competitive if the salary cap is what is making the sport competitive? I can tell you why the Browns are not competitive and it has nothing to do with a salary cap. The reason the Browns haven't been competitive is because they don't have an elite level QB. That is the simple reason it is not because of some mysterious salary cap helping them become competitive. You have yet to even show any proof that a salary cap makes a team competitive let alone the whole league.

[RightFieldCoder]

I would love it if the NFL dropped the salary cap and let the Cowboys get better players. It would make Sundays so much more enjoyable for me.

 

Maybe we should organize a OWM* to demand full salary cap and revenue sharing in baseball to help out the little guys.

 

 

 

*Occupy the Winter Meetings

[BuckyBrewer61]

It seems as though the arguments for the anti-cap crowd are essentially saying that the small market clubs can out-do the big market teams by drafting wisely, trading effectively, and spending wisely whereas the big market teams end up signing big name free agents to bad contracts, thus evening the field. This may be true and will happen, but it says absolutely nothing about the inherent advantage of having multiple times a larger payroll than another team.

Sure, the Mets and Cubs can hand out terrible contracts and end up with a bad team. But so can the Brewers. Or the Royals. The point is that, at square one, the field is not created equal. This argument is like if two people started playing Monopoly, and one person started with $1,000 and the other $4,000. Sure, the poorer player could outfox the rich one and win, but that has everything to do with the player and nothing to do with competitive balance.

If big market team executives run their team poorly, that's a failure of the team just as much as if the pitcher gives up home runs or the batters strike out. It is not MLB's job to govern that in any way. It should be their job, however, to create a fair and equal playing field for all teams to start from, and may the best front office/coaching staff/players win. And because teams start with such a wide disparity in available finances, they are simply not doing this.

[Ennder]

If you think the field is equal in the NFL you are just not paying attention. Top end FA will sign team friendly contracts to join winning teams or some large market teams, in baseball top end FA get overpaid to join large market teams. The Yankees have to overpay per WAR to get their players, sure they get to pick the guys they want but their wins per $ are inherently lower than other teams. In the NFL top end teams underpay to keep/sign the stars so their win per $ is inherently higher than other teams. Baseball has some work to do in general but a salary cap wouldn't fix things and salary caps in general are pretty flawed.

 

The largest reason for parity in football is that injuries can destroy a team so easily and they play an unbalanced and more importantly short schedule so a couple of bad games can take you out of the playoffs. The same teams are good year in and year out in the NFL and have been ever since the salary cap was in place. It is just easy for new teams to sneak into the playoffs for a year because of how the league works, not really the cap itself. This is really no different than in any other sport. Same with basketball and hockey which have caps, you can set your watch by half of the playoff teams being the same every year.

[logan82]

It seems as though the arguments for the anti-cap crowd are essentially saying that the small market clubs can out-do the big market teams by drafting wisely, trading effectively, and spending wisely whereas the big market teams end up signing big name free agents to bad contracts, thus evening the field. This may be true and will happen, but it says absolutely nothing about the inherent advantage of having multiple times a larger payroll than another team.

Sure, the Mets and Cubs can hand out terrible contracts and end up with a bad team. But so can the Brewers. Or the Royals. The point is that, at square one, the field is not created equal. This argument is like if two people started playing Monopoly, and one person started with $1,000 and the other $4,000. Sure, the poorer player could outfox the rich one and win, but that has everything to do with the player and nothing to do with competitive balance.

If big market team executives run their team poorly, that's a failure of the team just as much as if the pitcher gives up home runs or the batters strike out. It is not MLB's job to govern that in any way. It should be their job, however, to create a fair and equal playing field for all teams to start from, and may the best front office/coaching staff/players win. And because teams start with such a wide disparity in available finances, they are simply not doing this.

I agree with what you are saying but all a cap will do is put more money in the owners' pockets. To really level the playing field we would have to make the cap somewhere around $100m and there are several teams that still couldn't spend that much without losing money.

[zurch1818]

Looks like we have nothing to worry about. Under the current system, if Pujols signs with the Marlins, the Cards would get a second round pick in compensation. Although they don't say how the current system is going to change, it's good to hear that it is going to change.

 

Link