|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 22, 2022 19:21:56 GMT -5
OK I forgot who exactly said Dave Parker does not belong in the HOf but then one could make the case that al kaline and Willie Stargell don't exactly deserve plaques either. Kaline is a member of the 3000 hit club but he won only one batting title and had three 100 RBI seasons, and not once did he reach 30 home runs in a season stargell's numbers don't exactly jump out at anyone either. . Bottom line is you could probably nitpick a ton of reasons why guys with plaques don't deserve one. In Kaline's era, if you got 3000 hits, you were a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame. That's just the way it is. Also, Kaline has 92.9 WAR, which is 42nd all time and 28th among position players. That's a no-doubter. As far Stargell (57.5 WAR), he's not on Kaline's level, but he's still well ahead of Parker. Actually just ordered a bio of Stargell that should arrive next week and kaline is on the list, so I am by no means taking shots at em. I was more surprised their career numbers weren't more gaudy.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 23, 2022 13:34:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 23, 2022 14:01:58 GMT -5
The Angels are an interesting franchise. They have spent a lot of money and don't have that much to show for it. Edit: I just looked at the payrolls by team. MLB could really use a salary cap (and a floor). If it's good enough for the NFL, it's good enough for baseball.
|
|
|
Baseball
Aug 23, 2022 14:27:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Mocha on Aug 23, 2022 14:27:53 GMT -5
Good riddance. Moreno screwed Anaheim after the city spent millions on the stadium renovation.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 23, 2022 14:37:39 GMT -5
Not to mention giving pujols a 10 year contract. I don't care how good a player is. Given the average career span of a player 10 years is just insane. Five years is plenty.
|
|
|
Post by notwvb on Aug 23, 2022 14:44:55 GMT -5
In Kaline's era, if you got 3000 hits, you were a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame. That's just the way it is. Also, Kaline has 92.9 WAR, which is 42nd all time and 28th among position players. That's a no-doubter. As far Stargell (57.5 WAR), he's not on Kaline's level, but he's still well ahead of Parker. Actually just ordered a bio of Stargell that should arrive next week and kaline is on the list, so I am by no means taking shots at em. I was more surprised their career numbers weren't more gaudy. Only a handful of outfielders have more gold gloves than Kaline's nine. What an arm Kaline had. He has at least one gaudy stat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2022 15:23:31 GMT -5
The Angels are an interesting franchise. They have spent a lot of money and don't have that much to show for it. Edit: I just looked at the payrolls by team. MLB could really use a salary cap (and a floor). If it's good enough for the NFL, it's good enough for baseball. I disagree. Baseball is the only capitalist sport in America. Salary caps are about maximizing the profit of billionaires. They already get millions in local subsidies. Why help them more? The Moreno sale has a different aspect, I believe. I believe the tax deduction benefits of his original purchase run out after 20 years--and next year is 2023. I believe a sale works massively to his financial advantage. I think this was discussed in 'The Lords of Baseball' but I don't completely recall where I read about that time limit for tax benefits.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 23, 2022 15:34:47 GMT -5
The Angels are an interesting franchise. They have spent a lot of money and don't have that much to show for it. Edit: I just looked at the payrolls by team. MLB could really use a salary cap (and a floor). If it's good enough for the NFL, it's good enough for baseball. I disagree. Baseball is the only capitalist sport in America. Salary caps are about maximizing the profit of billionaires. They already get millions in local subsidies. Why help them more? The Moreno sale has a different aspect, I believe. I believe the tax deduction benefits of his original purchase run out after 20 years--and next year is 2023. I believe a sale works massively to his financial advantage. I think this was discussed in 'The Lords of Baseball' but I don't completely recall where I read about that time limit for tax benefits. Salary caps and floors (and revenue sharing) mean that there is a lot more parity. It's worked for both the NFL and NHL. In fact, the NHL actually sacrificed an entire season due to a lockout to get the cap in place. And I think that as painful as that lost season was, it was ultimately worth it. The NBA technically has a salary cap, but there are so many exceptions and other loopholes that it's not that much different from MLB in my view. I think baseball is a great sport, but it's hard for me to support a league that allows its top spending team to have a payroll that is more than $220 million more than the lowest-spending team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2022 16:01:51 GMT -5
I disagree. Baseball is the only capitalist sport in America. Salary caps are about maximizing the profit of billionaires. They already get millions in local subsidies. Why help them more? The Moreno sale has a different aspect, I believe. I believe the tax deduction benefits of his original purchase run out after 20 years--and next year is 2023. I believe a sale works massively to his financial advantage. I think this was discussed in 'The Lords of Baseball' but I don't completely recall where I read about that time limit for tax benefits. Salary caps and floors (and revenue sharing) mean that there is a lot more parity. It's worked for both the NFL and NHL. In fact, the NHL actually sacrificed an entire season due to a lockout to get the cap in place. And I think that as painful as that lost season was, it was ultimately worth it. The NBA technically has a salary cap, but there are so many exceptions and other loopholes that it's not that much different from MLB in my view. I think baseball is a great sport, but it's hard for me to support a league that allows its top spending team to have a payroll that is more than $220 million more than the lowest-spending team. There's nothing stopping the Royals, etc, from spending more. They CHOOSE not to. The Dodgers CHOOSE to spend. As it should be. And for all the 'parity' in the NBA/NFL...the NBA has had nothing but dynasties. And the Patriots have owned the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 23, 2022 16:17:59 GMT -5
The Angels are an interesting franchise. They have spent a lot of money and don't have that much to show for it. Edit: I just looked at the payrolls by team. MLB could really use a salary cap (and a floor). If it's good enough for the NFL, it's good enough for baseball. Baseball has a soft salary cap. If teams exceed it they have to pay a "luxury tax". Those on track to exceed the cap this year: Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox. Half the collected "tax" goes toward paying for player benefits (that clubs would otherwise be on the hook for anyway; it's not like the tax is funding extra benefits). The other half is distributed as income to the teams that didn't exceed the limit. Anyway, the reason baseball doesn't have a hard cap is because the baseball union is so much stronger than the football union. It is obviously in the players' interests to have higher salaries, so they oppose a hard cap.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 23, 2022 17:03:19 GMT -5
I believe baseball salaries have been declining the past couple years, cannot remember if I saw that correctly. The aging of the MLB player has changed dramatically in the last 15 years - most likely due to PED's. As such, it is becoming more difficult for players below the super star level to cash in on contracts like the past - teams are finding younger players to be better and much cheaper. If this dynamic continues - the union may change their priority.
A salary cap coupled with a salary floor tied to % of revenue (which is another huge problem in that the owners do not share their revenue information) is a good model for competition and total player salaries. I think the NBA players do very well with this.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 23, 2022 17:06:42 GMT -5
Salary caps and floors (and revenue sharing) mean that there is a lot more parity. It's worked for both the NFL and NHL. In fact, the NHL actually sacrificed an entire season due to a lockout to get the cap in place. And I think that as painful as that lost season was, it was ultimately worth it. The NBA technically has a salary cap, but there are so many exceptions and other loopholes that it's not that much different from MLB in my view. I think baseball is a great sport, but it's hard for me to support a league that allows its top spending team to have a payroll that is more than $220 million more than the lowest-spending team. There's nothing stopping the Royals, etc, from spending more. They CHOOSE not to. The Dodgers CHOOSE to spend. As it should be. And for all the 'parity' in the NBA/NFL...the NBA has had nothing but dynasties. And the Patriots have owned the 21st century. The NFL is dominated by the QB position. NBA is dominated by the elite stars. Upsets in the playoffs in the NFL and NBA are much harder than in MLB where each series is close to a 50-50 proposition and at best/worst at 55-45. This is why we have seen more parity in MLB. It is way easier to luck yourself into the WS in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 23, 2022 17:29:24 GMT -5
Salary caps and floors (and revenue sharing) mean that there is a lot more parity. It's worked for both the NFL and NHL. In fact, the NHL actually sacrificed an entire season due to a lockout to get the cap in place. And I think that as painful as that lost season was, it was ultimately worth it. The NBA technically has a salary cap, but there are so many exceptions and other loopholes that it's not that much different from MLB in my view. I think baseball is a great sport, but it's hard for me to support a league that allows its top spending team to have a payroll that is more than $220 million more than the lowest-spending team. There's nothing stopping the Royals, etc, from spending more. They CHOOSE not to. The Dodgers CHOOSE to spend. As it should be. And for all the 'parity' in the NBA/NFL...the NBA has had nothing but dynasties. And the Patriots have owned the 21st century. Do you actually think the market size has nothing to do with how much money teams can spend in an uncapped system? Lol
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 23, 2022 17:32:10 GMT -5
The Angels are an interesting franchise. They have spent a lot of money and don't have that much to show for it. Edit: I just looked at the payrolls by team. MLB could really use a salary cap (and a floor). If it's good enough for the NFL, it's good enough for baseball. Baseball has a soft salary cap. If teams exceed it they have to pay a "luxury tax". Those on track to exceed the cap this year: Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox. Half the collected "tax" goes toward paying for player benefits (that clubs would otherwise be on the hook for anyway; it's not like the tax is funding extra benefits). The other half is distributed as income to the teams that didn't exceed the limit. Anyway, the reason baseball doesn't have a hard cap is because the baseball union is so much stronger than the football union. It is obviously in the players' interests to have higher salaries, so they oppose a hard cap. Yeah, I'm aware of the luxury tax. I don't think it's all that effective when the payroll disparity is so enormous. The thing about salary caps is that they actually tend to benefit the rank and file player at the expense of the superstar (see the article I linked). And there are a lot more rank and file players than superstars, so in theory, they should be in favor of a cap (as long as a floor and revenue sharing are also in place) because more players benefit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2022 8:14:41 GMT -5
There's nothing stopping the Royals, etc, from spending more. They CHOOSE not to. The Dodgers CHOOSE to spend. As it should be. And for all the 'parity' in the NBA/NFL...the NBA has had nothing but dynasties. And the Patriots have owned the 21st century. Do you actually think the market size has nothing to do with how much money teams can spend in an uncapped system? Lol You dodge the issue of your assertion that the NFL/NBA have parity because of their system, yet they have more sustained dynasties than baseball. Market size is quite important and yet, when is the last time the Yankees or Mets won a series? How many has a Chicago team won in the past 50 years? How many have been won this century by Los Angeles teams? Those totals are all lower than the number of Golden State titles in the past decade. And market size isn't completely relevant since we're talking about the playtoys of BILLIONAIRES. Or the shared revenue they get from MLB properties, etc. I oppose subsidies that benefit billionaires. If the billionaire owners in places like Denver or Milwaukee are upset, they can sell whenever they want.
|
|