Baseball's perfect financial setup vs. the dreaded NFL

Yes, and there are owners who choose to out revenue-sharing in their pocket, whine about their stadiums, write off their bad teams, and play everyone else in the game for suckers rather than approach their "limits."
I don't know what that last sentence there means.

 

Yeah, but the rest of us are all dumber for having heard it.
In baseball, markets like Pittsburgh and Indianapolis have/would have zero chance of winning a championship, zero chance of getting past the first round and about a .01 percent chance of making the playoffs.
In the NFL, they're your last two Super Bowl champions.
The biggest, most fraudulent story this year was "low-payroll" teams winning. Those rich franchises (Colorado, Cleveland, et. al.) were able to spend plenty on player development and talent acquisition while the small market teams decline to draft Scott Boras clients. There's nothing competitive about that structure.
Baseball changed, apparently forever, when the Yankees signed their first $50 million-plus cable deal, which was the progenitor of getting their own freaking channel. It's a complete joke.
Baseball doesn't even pretend to sell competition any longer. It's just a night at the ballpark. Baseball fans who really think it's going to get championship-level better in KC, Pittsburgh, Cincy are delusional.

 

Yes, some teams just pocket the money, which is against the rules and I agreed when spnited said that baseball needs to start enforcing those rules.

My last sentence was in response to the argument about the Patriots winning all the time despite a salary cap. They do it because they have been incredibly smart. They have made one good decision after another. Can you even remember one big free-agent bust during this run?

The Red Sox, on the other hand, have had a number of bad free-agent signings, including J.D. Drew and Julio Lugo. Wasn't Matt Clement still on the books for this year, too? They also added Eric Gagne for the stretch run and he was awful.

When have you seen NFL teams make those types of big-money mistakes and win a Super Bowl anyway?

The Patriots have no financial advantage on the rest of the NFL. They do what they do through the skill of the front office and coaching staff putting a team together. The Red Sox obviously have done some very good things in that area as well, but they had the advantage of a payroll much higher than most of the other teams in baseball to bolster their efforts.

 

Then, you are dumber than we thought.

 

And we were doing so well at keeping this civil....

 

He was being inflammatory and disingenuous in a way only he can be, acting dumb.

And he knows it.

 

And you're a raging prick who has an innate ability to fly off the handle. Do you mind me pointing that out?

 

And I'm the cranky one?

 

All true, but never on this board.

 

Look, go take your passive-aggressive mulch-for-brains act down the road while the rest of us talk, OK? You understand less about what you're talking about than anybody else on this board.
The Patriots are "specifically good" because they do it without the financial advantages that the Red Sox have? In other words, if they had the advantages, they wouldn't be "specifically good"? Or what?
Foof.

 

Well, 76 million fans thought otherwise this year. The per-game attendance record set in 1993, one I thought would never be busted, was. Apparently there are enough fans out there who love the game and can overlook the flaws.

God help if there is ever a lockout over this. If people thought the NHL stoppage was bad, MLB's little lockout would be like The Day After.

 

Doc, I understand how Simon gets under people's skin (including mine on occasion), but he started this thread because posters were bitching about a threadjack on this subject on the Hot Stove thread. Obviously, those not interested in this topic can just avoid the thread.

And steveu, just because the fans still love baseball doesn't mean there aren't flaws in the system.