OT - I'm bored, Part Pangos & Bell!

[Nasty_Magician]

Michael Morse is pinch hitting for the Marlins right now despite the fact he is traded pending a physical. Is the media going to crucify the Marlins for having him in the game like they did for the Mets?

 

[Nasty_Magician]

....

 

[dare2be]

Of course the late 90s-early 00's were much more unbalanced, but teams weren't privy to the new world of analytics yet and no team other than the Yankees came close to spending $100 million on a roster. $100 mil is probably somewhere around the median payroll these days.

Yes, the median has jumped significantly in the last 5 years, but the variance is still 4x high-to-low, while it was 6x high-to-low just 5 years ago. And even taking totals over the last 6 years, with fluctuations year-to-year, the total variance is still 4x.

The biggest variance is within the top 5-7 teams, while the rest of the salary numbers level off further down the list. If it were more of a level curve with say, a 2x variance, then I think it wouldn't be as big a deal.

 

[pixburgher66]

I'm suggesting there's a consistency amongst teams that use the prospect route and teams that use the spend big route, and it goes against the whole "rich teams buying titles" concept.

Not understanding your point about the Pirates - management did their jobs and things worked out well and that's rare? Isn't that what's supposed to happen? Also, McCutchen was taken 11th overall in a deep first round. That's usually where you find superstars.

Buying titles isn't really possible any longer, again because of analytics and low payroll teams being able to manage differently, and I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying the Dodgers have an advantage, one I consider significant, merely due to market size. That trade, which I think is finally done, included Arroyo...who is both washed up and recovering from TJ. Why? Because the Dodgers can buy out other teams mistakes in return for lesser prospects. There are multiple teams out there that value moving dead salary more than receiving prospects. It's an advantage that I hate.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Buying titles isn't really possible any longer, again because of analytics and low payroll teams being able to manage differently, and I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying the Dodgers have an advantage, one I consider significant, merely due to market size. That trade, which I think is finally done, included Arroyo...who is both washed up and recovering from TJ. Why? Because the Dodgers can buy out other teams mistakes in return for lesser prospects. There are multiple teams out there that value moving dead salary more than receiving prospects. It's an advantage that I hate.

That's fine. I just don't see that as an issue when it comes to competitive advantage. That's like hating the Leafs for being able to pay Horton just for the opportunity to no longer have that men's league ball hockey player on the team. I find nothing wrong with it at all, some do. Does it affect whether or not the Leafs can win? Not one bit.

 

[Cobiemonster]

 

[dash]

 

[pixburgher66]

That's fine. I just don't see that as an issue when it comes to competitive advantage. That's like hating the Leafs for being able to pay Horton just for the opportunity to no longer have that men's league ball hockey player on the team. I find nothing wrong with it at all, some do. Does it affect whether or not the Leafs can win? Not one bit.

Similarities there, but salary cap is the great equalizer. The Dodgers are taking advantage of the system which screws small markets. In addition to these kind of things, there's the changes to the draft/international system. There's an onus on small markets to find new avenues and take risks, and their risks with money are higher leverage because they can't buy their way out of it. The Pirates took a risk on Kang, and it paid off, but guess what? Now that a KBO player has had success, the price just went way up in that market. Small markets pave the way, then big markets swoop in and price out the small markets. Each are essentially playing two different games, and that pisses me off. It should be about how well your front office manages, not how much money you can throw at mistakes. Shouldn't be able to make things disappear with boat loads of money, while other teams get sunk in the same spot. And I get a large market fan not caring, but it's a disadvantage, and there's no way you prove otherwise.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Similarities there, but salary cap is the great equalizer. The Dodgers are taking advantage of the system which screws small markets. In addition to these kind of things, there's the changes to the draft/international system. There's an onus on small markets to find new avenues and take risks, and their risks with money are higher leverage because they can't buy their way out of it. The Pirates took a risk on Kang, and it paid off, but guess what? Now that a KBO player has had success, the price just went way up in that market. Small markets pave the way, then big markets swoop in and price out the small markets. Each are essentially playing two different games, and that pisses me off. It should be about how well your front office manages, not how much money you can throw at mistakes. Shouldn't be able to make things disappear with boat loads of money, while other teams get sunk in the same spot. And I get a large market fan not caring, but it's a disadvantage, and there's no way you prove otherwise.

The salary cap isn't needed to equalize when the playing field is levelled via differences in team building strategies.

Also, how difficult would it be for teams like the Rays and A's to reach a cap floor? How unhealthy do those teams become fiscally when they have to spend more by law?

 

[pixburgher66]

The salary cap isn't needed to equalize when the playing field is levelled via differences in team building strategies.

Also, how difficult would it be for teams like the Rays and A's to reach a cap floor? How unhealthy do those teams become fiscally when they have to spend more by law?

Cap/floor isn't perfect, but a complete lack of fiscal restrictions makes the system laughable.

 

[Darkstone42]

The salary cap isn't needed to equalize when the playing field is levelled via differences in team building strategies.

Also, how difficult would it be for teams like the Rays and A's to reach a cap floor? How unhealthy do those teams become fiscally when they have to spend more by law?

The Yankees and Cubs are adopting the small market team building strategy. So where will that edge go? It will vanish, is the answer. And those teams can afford to extend/retain their start talent, or at least make a competitive offer. Small market teams can't.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

The Yankees and Cubs are adopting the small market team building strategy. So where will that edge go? It will vanish, is the answer. And those teams can afford to extend/retain their start talent, or at least make a competitive offer. Small market teams can't.

I'm not quite understanding how a system can vanish by more teams adopting it. I'm gonna need an explanation on that one.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Cap/floor isn't perfect, but a complete lack of fiscal restrictions makes the system laughable.

No, it makes it an open marketplace. The cap places restrictions on what one can earn, which is bullshit, and as we've seen first hand in the NHL can lead to some wholly undeserving players being paid high amounts just so teams can get to the cap floor. Reward the unskilled at the expense of those who deserve it so rich owners can save some money that should be going to those who fans actually pay to see.

 

[Darkstone42]

I'm not quite understanding how a system can vanish by more teams adopting it. I'm gonna need an explanation on that one.

The system doesn't vanish, the advantage of using it does.

Let's say the Pirates have discovered a talent pool in Korea. They will now be routinely outbid by other teams to dip into it.

In the draft, the Pirates have an amateur scouting edge, but now the Yankees employ the same kind of amateur scouting and take talent away from the Pirates before they can get it.

In Latin America, the Pirates have one of the best in Rene Gayo, so they get talent on the cheap because no one else is noticing it. Now the Yankees can employ a Gayo-type and drive up the prices on that undervalued talent.

In Major League scouting, the Pirates and Rays highlight the market inefficiency of pitch-framing catchers, getting good ones on cheap deals. The Yankees notice this, and they can drive up the prices on those smaller market teams.

The Yankees are employing a philosophy which mirrors their successful small market contemporaries. But they have the resources to explore several market inefficiencies and undiscovered talent pools at once, which will allow them, with any competence, to prevent the small market teams from beating them to the punch, leaving the small market teams without their biggest weapon.

The solution doesn't have to be a cap, though. There is probably some creative solution to keep teams on an even playing field, reward successful franchises for their success, and get the money to the players. Nobody's bothered to find it.

 

[Cobiemonster]

LOL

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

The system doesn't vanish, the advantage of using it does.

Let's say the Pirates have discovered a talent pool in Korea. They will now be routinely outbid by other teams to dip into it.

In the draft, the Pirates have an amateur scouting edge, but now the Yankees employ the same kind of amateur scouting and take talent away from the Pirates before they can get it.

In Latin America, the Pirates have one of the best in Rene Gayo, so they get talent on the cheap because no one else is noticing it. Now the Yankees can employ a Gayo-type and drive up the prices on that undervalued talent.

In Major League scouting, the Pirates and Rays highlight the market inefficiency of pitch-framing catchers, getting good ones on cheap deals. The Yankees notice this, and they can drive up the prices on those smaller market teams.

The Yankees are employing a philosophy which mirrors their successful small market contemporaries. But they have the resources to explore several market inefficiencies and undiscovered talent pools at once, which will allow them, with any competence, to prevent the small market teams from beating them to the punch, leaving the small market teams without their biggest weapon.

The solution doesn't have to be a cap, though. There is probably some creative solution to keep teams on an even playing field, reward successful franchises for their success, and get the money to the players. Nobody's bothered to find it.

Lol so you're upset that teams are replacing one competitive advantage with another that your team currently uses.

Also, do you actually think teams like the Dodgers and Yankees don't have scouting in Latin America? Where you think they found Valenzuela and Sandman?

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

LOL

Fiers was linked with the Jays earlier. Good trade for both sides, bad for the Mets who are just Metsing all over the place.

 

[Darkstone42]

Lol so you're upset that teams are replacing one competitive advantage with another that your team currently uses.

Also, do you actually think teams like the Dodgers and Yankees don't have scouting in Latin America? Where you think they found Valenzuela and Sandman?

They obviously do. The Dodgers own Cuba and the Dominican, two already-discovered markets.

It makes perfect sense that big-budget teams would pounce on the markets discovered by small market teams. I'm not upset at them for doing it. I think it's unfair that all teams cannot be equal players in all markets, or that some markets are basically completely off-limits for some teams, or that some teams have to work much harder than others to find viable markets just because of the geographical location they happen to occupy.

 

[pixburgher66]

No, it makes it an open marketplace. The cap places restrictions on what one can earn, which is bullshit, and as we've seen first hand in the NHL can lead to some wholly undeserving players being paid high amounts just so teams can get to the cap floor. Reward the unskilled at the expense of those who deserve it so rich owners can save some money that should be going to those who fans actually pay to see.

the system isn't perfect, but as a small market fan it's absolute torture having the current system. I spent my childhood watching a team refuse to spend, and there was nothing forcing them to. I'll watch more stars leave because they'll be priced out by big teams, simply because my favorite team is in Pittsburgh and not NYC. That's bullshit. Not sure how else to explain it. Small market teams having success? Cool, but it is absolutely in spite of the system that exists. They have to work much harder with fewer resources. I hate that. Again, it doesn't have to specifically be a cap, but there should be some form of restriction or penalty. That trade today was a perfect example. Arroyo is straight salary dump, Morse acquired as relief and then DFA'd. They ate $43.5M in that trade, which made them able to acquire better assets. Bullshit. It is bullshit.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

They obviously do. The Dodgers own Cuba and the Dominican, two already-discovered markets.

It makes perfect sense that big-budget teams would pounce on the markets discovered by small market teams. I'm not upset at them for doing it. I think it's unfair that all teams cannot be equal players in all markets, or that some markets are basically completely off-limits for some teams, or that some teams have to work much harder than others to find viable markets just because of the geographical location they happen to occupy.

Two words - international draft.