1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Baseball's perfect financial setup vs. the dreaded NFL

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Simon_Cowbell, Nov 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    I agree completely about the floor but I don't see a cap ever hapening -- no way Don Fehr and the boys go for it.
    The other current problem is MLB has to enforce the rule that revenue sharing money has to go to player development and/or payroll. Bud's letting too many "poor" owners pocket the proceeds from the major market teams.
     
  2. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    But does it really keep the playing field level? Organizations routinely manipulate caps to stay competitive. And there are other organizations that have a ton of cap room and can't sign players.

    Look at the NHL. The league locked out its players because the owners pleaded poverty and said that its smaller market franchises couldn't survive in a cap-less league.

    The players relented and what's happened? The small market teams--Edmonton, being a primary example--can't sign top tier free agents.
     
  3. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    True, the union wouldn't go for a cap. The owners would never be unified on that issue anyway. Can you imagine the Yankees trying to get under a $120 million cap?

    And yes, that rule definitely should be enforced better. I wonder how much of Selig's reluctance to do so is fear of a team like the Pirates being put up for sale. Enforce that rule properly and suddenly the owners of the Pirates aren't making money, and at that point the Nuttings would probably want out.

    That sale could definitely cause problems. Who is going to want to buy that team as long as it is stuck in Pittsburgh (I forget exactly how long they have to stay due to the deal with the new ballpark)? Mark Cuban has expressed an interest in the past, but his first choice is the Cubs and supposedly the owners don't want him in their little club anyway.

    And you know Selig is going to want to keep that team in Pittsburgh. We would suddenly start hearing a lot of noise out of the commissioner's office about the long, storied tradition of Major League Baseball in Pittsburgh.

    Not to mention the complete disaster it would be for the city if the team finds a loophole to get out of town sooner rather than later.
     
  4. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    In the NFL, it keeps the field much more level than baseball. It's not perfect. No league has a perfect system.

    I'll have to take your word on the hockey example. I really don't know enough about how the finances work in the NHL to debate the topic.
     
  5. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    But it's not for a lack of funds. It's because it's fuckin Edmonton. For once they can bid with teams like the leafs and Red wings. Prior to the cap that would have been impossible
     
  6. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    Talk to the Sabres. They were unable to bid with the Rangers and Flyers for Drury and Briere.
     
  7. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    That is mostly due to cap space. Of course some teams are richer but having a maximum prevents the Rangers and Flyers doing this year in year out like before.
    This year the Canucks will be about 12 mill under the cap. This is what will allow them to spend. Some of these contracts will come back and haunt these teams. Before the cap when did you see a team like Edmonton offer the money they have offered players?
     
  8. steveu

    steveu Well-Known Member

    Correct me if I am wrong... isn't the current salary cap in the NHL above the average amount that was being spent per team before the NHL locked out the players?

    If so, then why the fuck did we have a lockout for one year?

    Baseball does NOT need a salary cap. It simply needs its teams to make better spending decisions. Better attendance will equal more revenue, especially when you factor in postseason play. It will be something to see how Colorado fares for the next few years because baseball is suddenly relevant there once again. You'll see crowds of 35-40,000 at Coors next year, possibly more, as everyone jumps back on the wagon.

    The game needs more owners to follow the model of assembling key players from the farm system and augmenting it with a free-agent signing here and there ala Meche in Kansas City. The Royals didn't pocket the bucks from revenue sharing, they stuck it back into the team. They've got $25 million to spend this year (in what, ya, is a bad free-agent market), but you can get some quality talent for that.

    The NFL system is superior, my ass. Tell that to the Miami Dolphins. The New York Jets. Hell, you know that system is whacked when the Lions are 6-2. :)

    I was wondering how long it would take for the old battle cry "baseball needs a salary cap and revenue sharing" to come out when the Red Sox won their second title in four years. I'm sick and tired of that old and tired phrase. It's not going to happen. Get used to it. If salary caps are so good, then why do the Patriots consistently win in football? The Spurs in basketball?? Just because you put a cap in place doesn't mean the Red Sox and Yankees won't win pennants.

    Rant over. God, I feel better. :)
     
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Let's see the Royals actually contend before we start calling what they have done a success, ok?

    There are limits to how high revenue can go, and those limits are a lot higher in cities like Boston and New York than they are in Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Tampa Bay, to cite a few examples.

    And to answer your quesiton about the Patriots, they are that consistently good because they earn it without the financial advantage the Red Sox have.
     
  10. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    Please... a single, cogent point.

    Just one.
     
  11. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Not defending anything steve said, but to you there are no cogent points that don't jibe with yours. We went round and round on this last summer, and it's happening again. In fact, why did you even start a new thread? Feeling nostalgic?
     
  12. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    I have given you fact after fact with only BYH's flimsy retort as the slightest refutation.

    "The NFL system is superior, my ass."

    That bold comment deserves some empirical support.

    There is none.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page