Baseball's perfect financial setup vs. the dreaded NFL

There wouldn't be this level of revenue sharing if the PA had its way. There wouldn't be a luxury tax if the PA had its way. There wouldn't be drug testing without cause if the PA had its way.

And those big market teams of which you complain are also paying an additional 40 cents on the dollar for every player they sign over baseball's soft cap. Don't see how that adds up to cheating. They play under rules to which everybody including the Pirates and Royals agreed. Heck, I'm pretty sure McClatchey was on at least one of the last couple of bargaining committees for the owners.

What you don't seem to understand is that a truly fair negotiation requires all parties to make compromises -- big market clubs, small market clubs and players. Nobody is perfectly happy with this or any other professional team sport's economic system, nor should they be.

 

This being a sportswriting board, I thought I could engage in a little humorous hyperbole to underscore my point. I thought a group of writers and editors would get that. Too bad.

 

Technically it isn't cheating because it isn't against the rules. I was using steroid use and doctoring baseballs as an example to prove that some people can fail even if they do take unfair advantage. And the word cheating may not apply, but those big-revenue teams still have an unfair advantage.

 

A salary cap is always and in every case a mechanism for control of player movement, not an economic device.

 

Pretty much, yeah.

 

The Yankees think the Pirates are getting an unfair advantage by getting to play with house money while they play with their own money and pay an additional 40 cents on the dollar over the cap. The players don't like having their ability to market their services to the highest bidder hindered, either. Again, negotiation means nobody walks away totally pleased.

 

This being a sportswriting board, I figured you might do a little better research. Otherwise, you would not have thrown in a little humorous hyperbole about baseball ranking behind the LPGA with the same system and the cookie-cutter stadiums of 15 years ago when baseball set an attendance record ... 14 years ago, with cookie-cutters in Atlanta, Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati and a more lopsided system than is in place now (although some teams hadn't begun to take advantage of it yet, with TV technology not nearly where it is today.)

Just sayin'.

 

No, denying free agency, as the NFL did for quite a while longer than MLB, is a way to restrict player movement. Yes, it is meant to keep wealthier teams from poaching too much of the top talent away from the teams with less money. But the cap in the NFL does not really limit player movement. I don't know the numbers, but it seems to me there has been more player movement in the NFL since the cap was put in place, though that can be misleading because free agency came in at the same time.

 

Exactly. The NFL and NBA just sold it to the public as a competitive balance device and God knows there's no shortage of people gullible enough to buy into the lie. The reason for the salary cap is to dummy proof ownership and lock in profits at the expense of players trying to market their services to the highest bidder.

 

Let's try it this way. Do the Yankees, with their $200 million-plus payroll have an advantage? Are the teams with dramatically lower payrolls are a disadvantage? If you are going to say no to either question, there is absolutely no point to continuing this discussion because you refuse to see reality.

And I'm not talking about comparing baseball as I would like it to be as it is, nor am I talking about what I think will happen.

I am comparing the NFL and MLB. The NFL system allows every single team to have the same financial resources when building its team. The MLB allows for huge differences in that area, giving teams with higher revenue streams a big advantage. The NFL system is more fair in terms of every team's ability to compete. To me, that makes it superior. Sports is supposed to be about winning through skill, not through the bigger bank account.

And cran, I think you are equally as gullible to think that baseball's system is fair just because some teams with lower revenue manage to compete despite the advantages the big-market franchises have over them. How exactly is a system that gives every team the same resources to build its roster not working toward competitive balance?

Is a salary cap only a competitive balance device? Of course not. It is also all of the things you say it is. But competitive balance is a part of it as well.

And please, I'm trying to keep this debate respectful and civil. Not everybody else seems to be willing or able to do so. They would rather try label those who disagree with them as fanboys or say they are gullible. Why is it so hard to argue your points on their merits instead of insulting one another? And I mean on both sides.

 

Nobody's arguing that baseball's system is 100 percent fair. And nobody's arguing that baseball's system is 100 percent perfect.

Just that this silly premise that the NFL's system is "more fair" (I'll refrain from using "superior," because I think that's totally subjective) is a joke. Who. Gives. A. Fuck. It's two different sports, with two different systems that cannot be equally measured because their seasons are so different and their setups are so different, and what makes one successful will not necessarily work for the other.

You think it's superior? Well, that's just, like, your opinion, maaan. [/lebowski.]

And I'm not so sure that a system with complete and impartial competitive balance is necessary a good thing. Or an entertaining thing. But that's just, like, my opinion, maaan. To each his own.

 

Well, that's the point I made 3 pages ago.
When the Yanks hit the jackpot with MSG, everything changed.
It's OK, Buck. I think you were 11 then.