|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 24, 2022 9:05:23 GMT -5
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. As bluepenquin points out, basketball is uniquely dominated by superstar players, which is what causes dynasties. That is the way it's always been. Also, the NBA has never had a true hard cap, and it's far too easy for superstars to engineer trades of their preference to large market teams. The NFL doesn't really have dynasties anymore apart from the Brady Patriots, and that was the combination of arguably the greatest player and coach of all time. As he said, there's also a fair amount of luck in baseball series compared to other sports. And the quality of management still matters. Your arguments are irrelevant and frankly asinine. If you think there is nothing wrong with the Dodgers spending $220 million more than the Orioles, then your opinion on this topic should not be taken seriously. And again, I'm not advocating for just a salary cap. There needs to be a salary floor and revenue sharing also. The average player will benefit.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 24, 2022 10:38:13 GMT -5
The average player will benefit. How many elite pro athletes think of themselves as "the average player"? Anyway, regardless of your arguments and the validity or not of them, it's pretty clear that the MLB players union does not want a salary cap. And they already have a salary floor (the MLB minimum). They have what is probably the strongest union in pro sports, and they are the main reason that MLB does not have a salary cap. With the exception of a few owners (Yankees especially), the owners generally want a salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 24, 2022 11:02:56 GMT -5
The average player will benefit. How many elite pro athletes think of themselves as "the average player"? Anyway, regardless of your arguments and the validity or not of them, it's pretty clear that the MLB players union does not want a salary cap. And they already have a salary floor (the MLB minimum). They have what is probably the strongest union in pro sports, and they are the main reason that MLB does not have a salary cap. With the exception of a few owners (Yankees especially), the owners generally want a salary cap. I think the average major leaguer knows that he's not Mike Trout. I agree with you that the MLB union is the strongest in pro sports. As for a salary floor, they might technically have one, but it's so low as to effectively not exist. The Orioles are spending less than $45 million on their payroll. A real cap and floor would be something like a cap of $150 million and a floor of $120 million (just some hypothetical figures--the actual numbers would be tied to total revenue). Edit: Max Scherzer's contract alone is about the same size as the entire Orioles payroll. That should not be possible if the system was set up correctly.
|
|
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 24, 2022 11:03:57 GMT -5
The average player will benefit. How many elite pro athletes think of themselves as "the average player"? Anyway, regardless of your arguments and the validity or not of them, it's pretty clear that the MLB players union does not want a salary cap. And they already have a salary floor (the MLB minimum). They have what is probably the strongest union in pro sports, and they are the main reason that MLB does not have a salary cap. With the exception of a few owners (Yankees especially), the owners generally want a salary cap. Baseball most certainly doesn't have a salary floor. For comparisons. The Baltimore Orioles payroll in 2022 is $43.4M on estimated 250M of revenue - just 17.4%. The Oklahoma City Thunder (lowest payroll in the NBA) has a payroll of $90M on a revenue of $183M (49.1%). I am sure the baseball union knows what it is doing, but I do think they may end up changing their strategy in the future. The NBA, by guaranteeing a % of revenue for the players - is getting a better deal for their rank and file players. The players union in baseball is leaving a ton of money on the table by not negotiating a % of revenue. What is worse for MLB players - the very best players are usually the lowest paid players. The whole salary structure is screwed up - and it is getting much, much worse over time as player's length of career has decreased since getting rid of PEDs. Combined, MLB players are getting a lower % of revenue in salary than the NBA or NFL. And the salary structure is badly screwed up where the best players (younger players) get paid significantly less than those other two sports.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 24, 2022 11:07:18 GMT -5
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. The "Big markets have all the money to sign free agents" really is an excuse used by the small market teams not to commit themselves entirely to winning. like zenstudent says where are the Yankee/Dodger/Red Sox dynasties? The suspicion here in Seattle is as long as the Mariners know how to make money without winning that's what they will do.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 24, 2022 11:09:48 GMT -5
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. The "Big markets have all the money to sign free agents" really is an excuse used by the small market teams not to commit themselves entirely to winning. like zenstudent says where are the Yankee/Dodger/Red Sox dynasties? The suspicion here in Seattle is as long as the Mariners know how to make money without winning that's what they will do. That's why you have a salary floor in addition to a salary cap (and revenue sharing). The small market teams will be forced to spend.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 24, 2022 11:12:33 GMT -5
How many elite pro athletes think of themselves as "the average player"? Anyway, regardless of your arguments and the validity or not of them, it's pretty clear that the MLB players union does not want a salary cap. And they already have a salary floor (the MLB minimum). They have what is probably the strongest union in pro sports, and they are the main reason that MLB does not have a salary cap. With the exception of a few owners (Yankees especially), the owners generally want a salary cap. Baseball most certainly doesn't have a salary floor. For comparisons. The Baltimore Orioles payroll in 2022 is $43.4M on estimated 250M of revenue - just 17.4%. The Oklahoma City Thunder (lowest payroll in the NBA) has a payroll of $90M on a revenue of $183M (49.1%). I am sure the baseball union knows what it is doing, but I do think they may end up changing their strategy in the future. The NBA, by guaranteeing a % of revenue for the players - is getting a better deal for their rank and file players. The players union in baseball is leaving a ton of money on the table by not negotiating a % of revenue. What is worse for MLB players - the very best players are usually the lowest paid players. The whole salary structure is screwed up - and it is getting much, much worse over time as player's length of career has decreased since getting rid of PEDs. Combined, MLB players are getting a lower % of revenue in salary than the NBA or NFL. And the salary structure is badly screwed up where the best players (younger players) get paid significantly less than those other two sports. I think his argument is that the "floor" is whatever is the total of paying everyone on your roster the league minimum. I agree with you overall. The players should want to negotiate a percentage of revenue, and I'm sure the owners would demand a cap in exchange, but it would be worth it.
|
|
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 24, 2022 11:45:11 GMT -5
The NBA and NFL basically has 4 years of control on rookies. Now the NFL allows a single player per team to be franchised - which can extend this to 6 years, but the salary of that player that is franchised is at something like the average of the top 5 players at that position.
MLB has 6 or 7 years of team control - fluctuating in how owners can manipulate service time. In addition - the best players will spend at least 2 years in the minor leagues w/o any service time. If drafted out of HS and being really good - it may be 4 or more years. The best players - and the ones where the owners don't manipulate service time - will hit free agency around age 27 or 28. Some players may not hit free agency until 30 or 31. The final 3 years of team control has salary arbitration, which helps. But this isn't nearly as lucrative as the franchise tag in the NFL. And they have Rule 5 - which prevents teams from stashing a player in the minor leagues and never giving him an opportunity to be a major league player (presumably with another team), but then the Rule 5 players are going to hit free agency very late in their careers.
Star NFL players are hitting free agency at 25 or 26 - at least a couple years sooner than MLB. NBA is hitting free agency sooner than that.
Like many things going on with baseball over the past 40 years - they have come to a collective bargaining agreement that isn't all that good for the players, owners, or the game in general. I mean the owners may be making some short term money out of this - but at a cost of the game suffering and not being nearly as strong as it should be.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 24, 2022 12:38:55 GMT -5
The NBA and NFL basically has 4 years of control on rookies. Now the NFL allows a single player per team to be franchised - which can extend this to 6 years, but the salary of that player that is franchised is at something like the average of the top 5 players at that position. MLB has 6 or 7 years of team control - fluctuating in how owners can manipulate service time. In addition - the best players will spend at least 2 years in the minor leagues w/o any service time. If drafted out of HS and being really good - it may be 4 or more years. The best players - and the ones where the owners don't manipulate service time - will hit free agency around age 27 or 28. Some players may not hit free agency until 30 or 31. The final 3 years of team control has salary arbitration, which helps. But this isn't nearly as lucrative as the franchise tag in the NFL. And they have Rule 5 - which prevents teams from stashing a player in the minor leagues and never giving him an opportunity to be a major league player (presumably with another team), but then the Rule 5 players are going to hit free agency very late in their careers. Star NFL players are hitting free agency at 25 or 26 - at least a couple years sooner than MLB. NBA is hitting free agency sooner than that. Like many things going on with baseball over the past 40 years - they have come to a collective bargaining agreement that isn't all that good for the players, owners, or the game in general. I mean the owners may be making some short term money out of this - but at a cost of the game suffering and not being nearly as strong as it should be. NHL players also hit free agency pretty late at age 27, though I think that's the max (no 31-year-old first-time free agents unless they already signed at least one extension). I completely agree with your last paragraph. It's kind of amazing that for all its flaws and mismanagement, baseball still endures.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 24, 2022 19:30:10 GMT -5
Big change coming to MLB schedules in 2023. Each team will play every other team - in both leagues - at least once.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 24, 2022 19:50:22 GMT -5
the best players will spend at least 2 years in the minor leagues w/o any service time Not always. Some players never spend a day in the minors. John Olerud, for example, was drafted out of WSU by Toronto and made the starting lineup of the big club immediately in his first pro season.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 24, 2022 20:03:21 GMT -5
the best players will spend at least 2 years in the minor leagues w/o any service time Not always. Some players never spend a day in the minors. John Olerud, for example, was drafted out of WSU by Toronto and made the starting lineup of the big club immediately in his first pro season. Bob Horner went straight from ASU to the Braves. It's kind of unusual not to though - even top players since they really want to see how they fare against professional players first, even if it's not MLB. Not sure how many skip leagues though. I remember when Tim Hudson came up, it was straight from AA.
|
|
|
Baseball
Aug 24, 2022 20:44:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Aug 24, 2022 20:44:49 GMT -5
There’s a pretty interesting list of players who never spent a day in the minors - Dave Winfield, Jim Abbott, Pete Incavglia, Harmon Killebrew, Sandy Koufax, Al Kaline(!), and a host of others. Still, pretty rare creatures.
|
|
|
Baseball
Aug 24, 2022 21:36:47 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Mocha on Aug 24, 2022 21:36:47 GMT -5
There’s a pretty interesting list of players who never spent a day in the minors - Dave Winfield, Jim Abbott, Pete Incavglia, Harmon Killebrew, Sandy Koufax, Al Kaline(!), and a host of others. Still, pretty rare creatures. John Olerud only played three games in the minors, and that was during his last season as a pro.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 24, 2022 22:52:34 GMT -5
There’s a pretty interesting list of players who never spent a day in the minors - Dave Winfield, Jim Abbott, Pete Incavglia, Harmon Killebrew, Sandy Koufax, Al Kaline(!), and a host of others. Still, pretty rare creatures. Bob Feller, Ernie Banks and Mel Ott, too. Some pretty good players on that list.
|
|