- Admin
- #26
Detroit spent a few dollars too...hehe
And its hard to compare before and after because the game drastically changed based on ties in the last CBA.
Debating pro/cons of installing salary cab for MLB
Detroit spent a few dollars too...hehe
And its hard to compare before and after because the game drastically changed based on ties in the last CBA.
- Admin
- #28
Old Guard does not mean spend the most money. It means traditions. While I dont believe that is the case here, Blugold apparently does. If it were the case, KC and Pitt would be in the fold as well. However lets not talk of the Cardinals being the whoa is me team as they are spending more than half the rest of the league and we all know that is going to go up very soon.
The reason there is not a cap is because certain big market owners dont want it and neither does the players association. And while both are short sided views, it absolutely goes to show that those owners feel as though spending more gives an advantage.
JB, I agree with everything you are saying. Also I am not trying to say Whoa is me for the Cardinals. They wont go over 105-110 next year as they will have some salary coming off the book (Carpenter, Westbrook, Berkman).
The MLBPA is going to do everything they can to prevent a salary cap and it is a fact that baseball has the strongest players union of any of the sports. I dont think we will see a cap anytime soon
- Admin
- #30
You do understand where that puts them right?
Hanks
On the Fringe
Yes, up two spots if everything stays the same. 10th is a lot lower than the Red Sox and the Yankees. Going back to what blugold said I still am not sure I understand your reasoning on that post JB.
.. [salary cap] should be a no-brainer. Except MLB has a hard-on
for their own history. MLB loves the old guard, Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals being successful.
The way I read this is a salary cap would be a no brainer except that the MLB cares too much about the "historical" teams being succesful and thus wont explore a salary cap because they dont want teams to have to get rid of a bunch of their top talent...
If a salary cap of $100 mil or even $90 mil was put into place, I would have to think the Cardinals would be in better shape than either of those other two teams. Cutting 10-15 mil is a lot easier then 60-75 mil
Flooder
Active member
http://www.freep.com/article/200803...ney-ball-Does-big-payroll-equal-World-Series-
This article is a couple years old, but says it all. There is no correlation between spending the most money and winning the World Series. As a matter of fact, you could argue the opposite. Now, if you want to talk about spending the most money and making the playoffs, I'm guessing there is a direct correlation and that too speaks to a lack of fairness and balance.
I am clearly a fan of one of these big spenders, but I am all for a cap. However the cap MUST include a hard-floor. Right now teams like Boston and New York pay a luxury tax when they over-spend and cheap-skate owners in some cities pocket this money instead of reinvesting in their product then complain when gate-receipts suck.
Also, the very fans who are complaining are themselves partly (all-be-it a small part) to blame. Take Tampa which put a fantastic product on the field from '06-'10 and couldn't fill the seats at $8/ticket. Meanwhile Boston has a 450+ game sell-out streak going with the second highest ticket prices in baseball ($28 for the cheapest seat in the park). 39,000 seats X 81 games X $40 avg. ticket (probably higher) equates to over $125 million in annual ticket revenue for the team. If fans can't be bothered to pay $8 to go to a game in Tampa or KC or San Diego, where do they think ownership will get the money to spend on a better team?
This article is a couple years old, but says it all. There is no correlation between spending the most money and winning the World Series. As a matter of fact, you could argue the opposite. Now, if you want to talk about spending the most money and making the playoffs, I'm guessing there is a direct correlation and that too speaks to a lack of fairness and balance.
I am clearly a fan of one of these big spenders, but I am all for a cap. However the cap MUST include a hard-floor. Right now teams like Boston and New York pay a luxury tax when they over-spend and cheap-skate owners in some cities pocket this money instead of reinvesting in their product then complain when gate-receipts suck.
Also, the very fans who are complaining are themselves partly (all-be-it a small part) to blame. Take Tampa which put a fantastic product on the field from '06-'10 and couldn't fill the seats at $8/ticket. Meanwhile Boston has a 450+ game sell-out streak going with the second highest ticket prices in baseball ($28 for the cheapest seat in the park). 39,000 seats X 81 games X $40 avg. ticket (probably higher) equates to over $125 million in annual ticket revenue for the team. If fans can't be bothered to pay $8 to go to a game in Tampa or KC or San Diego, where do they think ownership will get the money to spend on a better team?
Last edited:
Exactly Hanks, this is why they will have to cut some salary. The Cardinals cant realistically go much over 100 mil and the ownership has said that. Right now we are sitting at 98.. coming off the books will be:
- Chris Carpenter 14 mil
- Lance Berkman 8 mil
- Jake Westbrook 8 mil
That turns 98 into 68 we will have the money for Pujols without having to go much over 100 mil. I really hope that the Cards dont pay him more than 23-25 a year for 8 years tops or we will be overpaying and will screw ourselves for a long time to come.
- Admin
- #35
They would still be over a cap. Like I said, I dont agree with BG's assessment of it being historical, but its his thoughts. Cutting less salary may be easier, but its still cutting.
I dont think anybody would say that spending buys championships. And every post here has said a floor is needed as well.
However there is a big advantage to having money to spend. Its what happens when a mistake is made. If it happens to a team that has the resources, they move on and nothing matters. If it happens to a team without the same resources, they are crippled for years. Right now, smaller market teams can be nothing more than farm systems for larger market teams if a team chooses that path. And your example of Tampa is a perfect one.
Teams with the best signings will always win but the ability to spend will usually still beat not having that ability in the long haul. The one thing I say about articles for both sides is that for every article that says a cap does not matter, there is another one that says it does and can show that. Just like this season, take a look at the top 3 in MLB and their salaries.
- Admin
- #36
And while I wont turn this into a what are teh cardinals going to do next, you do realize that while those salaries might be coming off the books, they will field a player in those spots and if you think that it will be a league minimum rookie in each spot, I have news for you.
yorkem
The Terra Cotta King
I will start out by saying that yes, I am a Yankee fan, but I will also say I have no issue against a salary cap, as long as there is a minimum. Blame economics all you want, but when the Rays were in 1st place, and were drawing 7000 fans to a game, then maybe they should be moved. The fans scream "we want a winner", and "it's not fai, we can't compete with large market teams", but when they did, they weren't supported. And you wonder why they can't keep their free agents? There would have to be a salary floor IMO to make it right. As it is, teams like the Yankees are paying a luxury tax for their payrolls, but the teams receiving that money aren't using it to better their clubs. they are just pocketing the money, and that is ridiculous.
No I agree JB, but I can also tell you we have a utility outfielder Allen Craig who will be getting a long hard look at that shot in RF for Berkman.
As for pitching we will move Lance Lynn a young starter/reliever who has thrown decently well for us as a starter to take Westbrooks spot. We will almost certainly have to sign a SP, but 2 of those spots will more than likely be replaced internally.
Flooder
Active member
Except it's not an article, it's a graph or recent World Series winners and only 2 of 10 were top-spenders. You are absolutely right about mistakes - this year's Yankees carry Posada, have a $28 million A-rod on the DL, and way over-paid for Texeria but can still afford to be competitive. But, there was no cap in the 80's and Steinbrenner couldn't buy a playoff team to save his life.
Anyway, as I said, I'm for it if it's done right.
- Admin
- #40
Fans in Tampa were not screaming we want a winner to get their support. They want the Tampa Rays to actually be in Tampa. I wont get into why the team is not in Tampa, but the lot of land where the stadium was to be built was no longer available back in the day because another MLB owner outbid the owners in Tampa to put a minor league park there. Now times have changed and they are looking at moving that team if need be, but there is more to the Tampa Rays situation than just fans not showing up.
But look around the country. Fans are not showing up in many many places. They get a new stadium and play well, fans come, the stadium grows tired or the team has to rebuild because of finances, they stop coming. However if you have a floor and cap, all of these things dont matter and the games are settled on the field and the teams that make the best moves win....And while that is the case now, all teams have a shot, not just some teams.
- Admin
- #41
That was before the big dollars. Look at what transpired when the dollar exploded in MLB.
Hanks
On the Fringe
You'll over pay for him just like the Phillies did for Ryan Howard....it's the nature of the beast for a power hitter
The cards may have salary coming off but you're not going to replace all those players with AAA call-ups......spend wisely, the Cubs and their new ownership would love to screw the rival Cards and bring Pujols into Wrigley where he could hit 45+ HR's a year easily
The cards may have salary coming off but you're not going to replace all those players with AAA call-ups......spend wisely, the Cubs and their new ownership would love to screw the rival Cards and bring Pujols into Wrigley where he could hit 45+ HR's a year easily
coolbreeze
Aspiring Golferr
God, baseball debates are almost as boring as baseball itself....ALMOST!
Yeah, when I said, "Old Guard" I meant the historic franchises. I could have put the Phillies, Pirates, Dodgers, Reds, and Giants in there. But I didn't. Sorry. I believe that the oldest franchises have more pull with Bud and MLB. I don't think Bud cares if the Pirates are competitive. Or the Royals. Or the A's. As long as his show ponnies, Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies are bring in cash, he could care less if 26 teams in his league are jokes. As long as he has 4 really marketable teams, he is happy.
I don't hate the Cardinals franchise, historically speaking. I hate the Cardinals right now.
I hate Bud Selig more than anything else in Baseball. It pains me that he has a statue at Miller Park.
TC
Keg Thrower
Fans aren't showing up b/c baseball is the most boring game ever. Who wants to sit out in the ridiculous heat for 4 hours to see a 1-0 ball game? Not me.
As soon as these bastards went on strike in the 90's they lost my support.
tapatalk: even available for lefties!
As soon as these bastards went on strike in the 90's they lost my support.
tapatalk: even available for lefties!
I hope the Cards give Albert that deal. It would be the worst thing they could do. He doesn't have 8 productive years left.
I dont disagree, but he has 6 or so years of this level of productivity and that should be scary for the NL Central. He is starting to heat up just in time for the series Tuesday
yorkem
The Terra Cotta King
My point exactly. And, I was just using the Rays situation from a couple of years back as an example, but it happens with all small market teams. The best example of a small market team moving up to a mid-market team is the Twins. They built a winner, their fans came out, and they have been able to keep winning. Why, because the fans supported them, which gave the team more money, and they used it to get better players, and keep the good players they already had.
- Admin
- #50
Well, yes and no. They still cannot compete money wise and that has showed quite a bit recently. And while they have been a great team for MLB to hang their hat on that spending does not matter, you put them in the AL East with spenders and they would be average year after year.