Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Baseball's back

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Ibis
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    Crazy Charlie O Finley had a though on the subject many years ago: why not mandate one-year, free agent contracts. That would put an end to the multi-year boondogles that have nearly broken some clubs (Albert Bell in Baltimore, Alex Rodriguez in Texas.) The owners objected at the time, but having every player up for free agency would confine a said player's value to his most recent productive year.
    The union would never go for it. Heck, they'd never go for the NFL model of non-guaranteed contracts.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Ibis
    replied
    Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
    While my Buccos are beneficiaries, I agree completely. However, while eliminating the luxury tax may lower salaries it still carries the potential of the same teams still buying the best players due to their superior financial resources. Net result, no change.

    IMO if they want to balance income MLB should adopt a TV revenue package identical to the NFL. All partners share that equally, and local revenues from tickets, parking, concessions, etc. are theirs alone.

    Regards,
    Dennis
    The thing is, baseball doesn't want to balance income. The only reason the NFL does it is that Pete Rozelle convinced the owners socialism was in their best interest at a time when the sport wasn't all that popular. Thus, the Wellington Mara's of the world were willing to go along to ensure the sport survived. Baseball hasn't had such a concern since before 1900 (with the possible exception of 192-21 with the Black Sox scandal, which threatened the sport), so there is no way to convince the owners of the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers etc. to go along with the scheme.

    And the reality is that even under the current scheme, small market teams have been successful to a degree. They don't compete for titles as often as the Yankees do, but its not out of the realm for small market teams to compete over a good sized stretch of time when the team is run correctly. The Marlins have won as many World Series titles as the Red Sox since the Phish were founded. The Twins and As have been to the post season more often than the Mets or Cubs since 1990.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
    While my Buccos are beneficiaries, I agree completely. However, while eliminating the luxury tax may lower salaries it still carries the potential of the same teams still buying the best players due to their superior financial resources. Net result, no change.

    IMO if they want to balance income MLB should adopt a TV revenue package identical to the NFL. All partners share that equally, and local revenues from tickets, parking, concessions, etc. are theirs alone.

    Regards,
    Dennis
    Crazy Charlie O Finley had a though on the subject many years ago: why not mandate one-year, free agent contracts. That would put an end to the multi-year boondogles that have nearly broken some clubs (Albert Bell in Baltimore, Alex Rodriguez in Texas.) The owners objected at the time, but having every player up for free agency would confine a said player's value to his most recent productive year.

    Leave a comment:


  • D1J1
    replied
    Originally posted by Torien View Post
    In my humble opinion, the Luxury Tax is killing the game. Any form of subsidy changes the free market system. So, the value of Free Agents is artificially inflated. The Yankees wouldn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on players like Sabathia if there is no serious market that he could go to other than the most moneyed teams. So, C.C. would have had to accept 7 million a year or so because no one else could seriously offer more than that.

    Once you create an artificial market, the rich will always stay rich and the poor will only become more so.

    Wait a minute! Are we talking baseball or politics?
    While my Buccos are beneficiaries, I agree completely. However, while eliminating the luxury tax may lower salaries it still carries the potential of the same teams still buying the best players due to their superior financial resources. Net result, no change.

    IMO if they want to balance income MLB should adopt a TV revenue package identical to the NFL. All partners share that equally, and local revenues from tickets, parking, concessions, etc. are theirs alone.

    Regards,
    Dennis
    Last edited by D1J1; 14 Mar 10, 17:44. Reason: Add additional text

    Leave a comment:


  • Verinage
    replied
    Houston is gonna be big this year. Not really but we can hope.



    Or pray.

    Leave a comment:


  • Torien
    replied
    In my humble opinion, the Luxury Tax is killing the game. Any form of subsidy changes the free market system. So, the value of Free Agents is artificially inflated. The Yankees wouldn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on players like Sabathia if there is no serious market that he could go to other than the most moneyed teams. So, C.C. would have had to accept 7 million a year or so because no one else could seriously offer more than that.

    Once you create an artificial market, the rich will always stay rich and the poor will only become more so.

    Wait a minute! Are we talking baseball or politics?

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Alright: at least the Marlins and the Twins have the saving grace of putting some damned competitive teams on the field. The Padres, the Bucks, the Royals, the Nats, and the Reds can't say that. They put last place crap on the field year in and years out, yet the Yanks, the BoSox, the Mets, the ChiSox, et al, are penalized for doing exactly what every big league club should be doing: putting good teams on the field. As a Yankee fan, why should I be subsidizing losers in Baltimore? Shouldn't Oriole fans be doing that?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Ibis
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    That takes me back to the Ole Perfesser extolling the virtues of Placard Day.

    Try a winner's song on forsize.

    I hear that the Twins, the Jays, the Marlins, and the Padres just pocket their take from the luxury tax instead of investing it into the club on the field. When that practice changes I might consider realignment, but until the welfare queens of baseball start carrying their share of the load, then hell no.
    I make no excuses for the Marlins front office - either for 1) pocketing the money as you suggest (remember they just were forced to pay money or the union was going to sue them); or 2) BEING THE BEST FRONT OFFICE IN BASEBALL. I mean seriously, who else, other maybe than Minnesota, can even be considered in the same league as Beinfest and crew? When the cost per win stats are released, the Marlins have been at the top of the list since Beinfest took charge.

    This year probably isn't our year, but next year, watch out!

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    That takes me back to the Ole Perfesser extolling the virtues of Placard Day.

    Try a winner's song on forsize.

    I hear that the Twins, the Jays, the Marlins, and the Padres just pocket their take from the luxury tax instead of investing it into the club on the field. When that practice changes I might consider realignment, but until the welfare queens of baseball start carrying their share of the load, then hell no.

    Leave a comment:


  • D1J1
    replied
    Originally posted by The Ibis View Post
    Further to my last post, here is a column by Tom Verducci on SI.com:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ent/index.html

    short snippet:
    The floating division thing is the most ridiculous idea I ever heard. Maybe the other teams should look at getting better to win, rather than juggling the schedule.

    While they're at it, get rid of interleague play too!

    Regards,
    Dennis

    Leave a comment:


  • The Ibis
    replied
    Further to my last post, here is a column by Tom Verducci on SI.com:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ent/index.html

    short snippet:

    As with most issues of competitive balance, floating realignment involves finding a work-around to the Boston-New York axis of power in the AL East. In the 15 seasons during which the wild-card system has been in use, the Red Sox and Yankees have accounted for 38 percent of all AL postseason berths. The league has never conducted playoffs without the Red Sox or Yankees since that format began -- and in eight of those 15 years both teams made the playoffs. Since 2003 the Sox and Yankees have won at least 95 games 11 times in 14 combined seasons.

    One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight. A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston.

    Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs.

    Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee's discussions. It is important to remember that the committee's talks are very preliminary and non-binding.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Ibis
    replied
    Divisional realignment?

    Has anyone read about the proposals being floated about? I really don't like the idea of swapping divisions when you want to compete vs when you don't. Anyone else following this story?

    Leave a comment:


  • Twitter3
    replied
    Here's hoping the Brewers starting pitching is better than an average high school staff this year.

    2nd Rangers - I have to agree with your prediction for the WS. I don't see any NL team (right now) being able to take down the Phillies.

    Leave a comment:


  • 2nd Rangers
    replied
    Prediction 2010


    New York verses Philadelphia in the World Series
    Yankees win in six games.

    The song remains the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Ibis
    replied
    Originally posted by 2nd Rangers View Post
    You can not improve on perfection.
    Thanks slick.

    In 1923 the NY Yankees opened their new stadium
    They won the World Series that year.

    In 2009 the NY Yankees opened their new stadium
    They won the World Series that year.

    Baseball is indeed back.
    Since the Yankees aren't opening a new stadium this year, I suppose that means the rest of the league has a chance.

    Go Phish!

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

  • Karri
    Prawn heads
    by Karri
    How do you cook them? How do you eat them?

    So far I've always just twisted them off, and discarded it along with the shells and such, only...
    Yesterday, 11:40
  • Jose50
    Thoughts on the US abandoning NATO
    by Jose50
    Now may be a good time for the NATO countries to start beefing up their materiel, personnel and alliances. There is a decided wave here in the US that...
    Yesterday, 08:41
  • Von Richter
    Sagittarius Rising...
    by Von Richter
    Just having a re-read of this book after it's stood for donkey's years on the bookshelf. Once again, within the first couple of pages, I'm transported...
    Yesterday, 01:19
Working...
X