Tanaka to the Yankees!

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I still want both a salary ceiling and floor, but understand it would be difficult if not impossible to sell to the players union and pull off.

It does not stop me from wanting it though.

It would be even more impossible to institute a floor to several owners.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Sure they did. I'd have gone after Matt Garza instead. I'd have given up what the Rays wanted for David Price & given him the money. There are always other options out their. Tanaka has never made a pitch in MLB. We'll see if he's anywhere near as good as Darvish is soon enough.

The Yankees had no shot at David Price. The Rays would want prospects and the Yankees have none.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

the average salary in baseball is around $3.5 million. it is just the high end contracts that get out of hand at times.


in comparison somebody posted on this site that Roger Goodell is making almost $30 million. Tom Cruise was making $30 million a movie ten years ago. and don't even start on what most CEOs make.

Well said.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Its also common sense that if a team like seattle wants a player they have to pay significantly more than the "better" places to go... If seattle wants a big player they need to go for it with a crazy offer... I really dont believe that ellsbury had anything to do with seattle's offer...

Ellsbury didn't have anything to do with Seattle's offer. What it did was increase the cost for the YANKEES to get Cano back. If the Yankees had just made a serious offer to Cano from the start, Seattle's offer never would have came across the table. I agree that Seattle obviously wanted to make a big splash, but I think the Yankees could have gotten a deal done before Seattle went bonkers. Then, they go give Ellsbury a deal over 50% above his market value and ruin any chance they might have ever had.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Keith Law says that Tanaka will be a top 20-25 SP in 2014 and be elite.

Top 20-25 isn't elite.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I'll still never understand why people think a salary cap is a good idea. All it does is make owners richer and suppress player salaries. Do you really want your owner to get richer? Is that the idea of watching pro sports? That's its only purpose. The other leagues have proven that it doesn't improve parity (baseball already has as much or more than any sport with a cap), it has no impact on competitive balance (poorly-run teams stay bad and well-run teams stay good with or without a cap), and it leads to constant player turnover, and it waters down the quality of the actual on-field product. MLB needs better revenue sharing to help narrow the gap between the haves and the have nots. But it DOES NOT AND NEVER WILL need a salary cap. If you think salary caps are intended to do anything but suppress player salaries and line the pockets of owners, you've bought their sales pitch hook, line & sinker.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

I'll still never understand why people think a salary cap is a good idea. All it does is make owners richer and suppress player salaries. Do you really want your owner to get richer? Is that the idea of watching pro sports? That's its only purpose. The other leagues have proven that it doesn't improve parity (baseball already has as much or more than any sport with a cap), it has no impact on competitive balance (poorly-run teams stay bad and well-run teams stay good with or without a cap), and it leads to constant player turnover, and it waters down the quality of the actual on-field product. MLB needs better revenue sharing to help narrow the gap between the haves and the have nots. But it DOES NOT AND NEVER WILL need a salary cap. If you think salary caps are intended to do anything but suppress player salaries and line the pockets of owners, you've bought their sales pitch hook, line & sinker.

It's good for parity. There's a reason on average 5 new teams make the playoffs every year in football. The difference between a 1 seed in hockey and an 8 seed isn't all that much. So in terms of increasing the number of "quality" teams it's good. That doesn't mean I support it but that's the end goal of it.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

It's good for parity. There's a reason on average 5 new teams make the playoffs every year in football. The difference between a 1 seed in hockey and an 8 seed isn't all that much. So in terms of increasing the number of "quality" teams it's good. That doesn't mean I support it but that's the end goal of it.

Missed his point.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

Missed his point.

He's incorrect. It increases parity no doubt. Is it better for owners? Obviously, that's common sense. But it absolutely one hundred percent levels the playing field.

 

[BigDDude]

I'll still never understand why people think a salary cap is a good idea. All it does is make owners richer and suppress player salaries. Do you really want your owner to get richer? Is that the idea of watching pro sports? That's its only purpose. The other leagues have proven that it doesn't improve parity (baseball already has as much or more than any sport with a cap), it has no impact on competitive balance (poorly-run teams stay bad and well-run teams stay good with or without a cap), and it leads to constant player turnover, and it waters down the quality of the actual on-field product. MLB needs better revenue sharing to help narrow the gap between the haves and the have nots. But it DOES NOT AND NEVER WILL need a salary cap. If you think salary caps are intended to do anything but suppress player salaries and line the pockets of owners, you've bought their sales pitch hook, line & sinker.

Whatever the best solution is, someone needs to get on board and run with it then. If it is in revenue sharing, then, so be it. As long as their are lots of rules attached to it, with # 1 being that no team is allowed to pare their teams down to the point of being able to pay your whole team payroll from what you get from revenue sharing, like the Marlins are doing now.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

Player salaries follow league revenue. In order for the salaries to go down, the owners will have to stop making money hand over fist. Unless you just want the owners to get richer and the players to get poorer? I think the owners make too big a piece of the pie as it is.

That's garbage. Whether or not a player gets an inflated contract depends on an owner offering him the contract. If the contract isn't offered the player can't sign it. I don't consider this collusion. I call it COMMON SENSE.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

It's good for parity. There's a reason on average 5 new teams make the playoffs every year in football. The difference between a 1 seed in hockey and an 8 seed isn't all that much. So in terms of increasing the number of "quality" teams it's good. That doesn't mean I support it but that's the end goal of it.

Yup, you've been sold a bill of goods. The same teams are in it in the NFL every year (mainly tied to the teams that have the best QBs, and who draft the best). Yes, there are a few randoms every year, but how is that different from baseball? There isn't a big difference between a 1 seed and 8 seed in the NHL???? Seriously? yes, I know 8 seeds have beaten 1 seeds plenty of times, but there are a lot of things that factor into that, and a salary cap isn't one of them. 8s were upsetting 1s long before the NHL had a cap. I agree that the NFL has a certain degree of "randomness" (as in "my team has a shot this year" mentality) that MLB doesn't have, but that has nothing to do with the salary cap. It has to do with the short schedule and general unpredictability caused by the prevalence of injures. It's the nature of the sport, not its financial structure. In baseball, things that might ruin an NFL team's season can be worked out over 162 games.

 

[TheRangerDude]

Good Lord that's a lot of money!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKdCmxjYDE]Cheap Pete at the Bar - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

He's incorrect. It increases parity no doubt. Is it better for owners? Obviously, that's common sense. But it absolutely one hundred percent levels the playing field.

Except that I'm not. How has the playing field been leveled for the Cleveland Browns and the Jacksonville Jaguars? How has the playing field been leveled for the New England Patriots, who are in championship games year after year after year? Don't even get me started on the NBA, which has the least parity and competitive balance of any sport on the planet. Just as many teams make the playoffs in baseball as in football, once you factor in that the NFL has two extra slots (not counting the 1-game wild card play-in, which is just a gimmick). Teams unexpectedly make the playoffs in each sport every year. At no point have I suggested that the Yankees and Dodgers don't have an advantage. They do. But it's not an advantage that guarantees them anything, nor is it an advantage that can't be overcome by a team like the Rays. It's all about management, not money, and that's the reason the Browns always suck and the Patriots are always good. Their advantage would be better neutralized through increased revenue sharing, not a salary cap. All a salary cap would do is make the Steinbrenners richer.

 

[$500 Million]

 

[$500 Million]

I liked Huff

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

That's garbage. Whether or not a player gets an inflated contract depends on an owner offering him the contract. If the contract isn't offered the player can't sign it. I don't consider this collusion. I call it COMMON SENSE.

It's not common sense, it's being frugal, which is perfectly acceptable. If teams don't want to get into these bidding wars, I completely get it, but that's simply not reality. Plenty of teams have given out outrageous, market-obliterating contracts over the past 20 years in baseball. They're not all the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Red Sox and Cubs.

Again, at the end of the day, I just will never understand why we begrudge the players making the money they make when the leagues generate the revenue they do. It's completely backwards. If we're going to begrudge anyone (not saying we should), it should be the guy in the luxury box sipping cocktails and counting all the risk-free money he's making. Owners are a necessary part of the equation, but they make a way bigger cut than the value they bring to the product.

 

[Jims_Doors]

the average salary in baseball is around $3.5 million. it is just the high end contracts that get out of hand at times.


in comparison somebody posted on this site that Roger Goodell is making almost $30 million. Tom Cruise was making $30 million a movie ten years ago. and don't even start on what most CEOs make.

Nobody has a rooting interest in Roger Goodell, Tom Cruise or CEO's

Big difference.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Nobody has a rooting interest in Roger Goodell, Tom Cruise or CEO's

Big difference.

Sure they do.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

Except that I'm not. How has the playing field been leveled for the Cleveland Browns and the Jacksonville Jaguars? How has the playing field been leveled for the New England Patriots, who are in championship games year after year after year? Don't even get me started on the NBA, which has the least parity and competitive balance of any sport on the planet. Just as many teams make the playoffs in baseball as in football, once you factor in that the NFL has two extra slots (not counting the 1-game wild card play-in, which is just a gimmick). Teams unexpectedly make the playoffs in each sport every year. At no point have I suggested that the Yankees and Dodgers don't have an advantage. They do. But it's not an advantage that guarantees them anything, nor is it an advantage that can't be overcome by a team like the Rays. It's all about management, not money, and that's the reason the Browns always suck and the Patriots are always good. Their advantage would be better neutralized through increased revenue sharing, not a salary cap. All a salary cap would do is make the Steinbrenners richer.

In the NFL it all comes down to whether or not you have a QB. The Browns & Jaguars don't have one. I do think both teams have been run horribly which hasn't helped. The Broncos wouldn't be in the Super Bowl if they didn't sign Peyton Manning.

Baseball has been a joke in terms of parity for years. If a team can't afford a player they can't keep him. It's that simple. Teams like Tampa Bay, Florida, San Diego, Houston aren't going to be able to afford a 30M per year player. That's nuts.

The NBA should be ashamed of themselves for what's happening this season. So many teams attempting to tank is an embarrassment beyond words. The NHL did something about it after Pittsburgh & New Jersey were seeing who could tank worse for Mario Lemieux. It's to bad the NBA can't figure out a way to stop it.