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!

Thank goodness for salary caps

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by TheSportsPredictor, Jul 8, 2010.

  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    They could have gone longer with Santana, matched the Mets and still made money. That they didn't is, to heyabbott's point, probably a wise baseball decision. But it's hiding behind an excuse to say the game's economics forced their hand. I'd bet they could have signed Santana AND Hunter and still made money; the recent embarrassing disclosures by the Pirates and Marlins offer strong evidence in that direction.

    In the early 2000s the A's had two MVPs in three years that they refused to pay when free agency came up. Giambi even offered a hometown discount, but the A's said no because of a silly dispute over a no-trade clause. They wanted him off the books, pure and simple.

    In 2002, Giambi and Tejada and the A's drew 2.1 million fans. In 2009, the A's drew 1.4 million. And yet the Oakland A's, who until 10 years ago were equal or superior to the Giants in on-field performance and marketing within the Bay Area, have been allowed to give up while still making money every single year. When they blew a series to the Red Sox because they could not complete the simple act of running the bases, Billy Beane flew off the handle about the payroll disparity and everyone accepted that excuse.

    It's funny how everyone used to lump the Tigers down with the no-chance teams. Then they started spending money and winning, and suddenly they're evidence of the game's disparity because they're in such a big market. "Small market" and "small revenue" are very different concepts, and it's asinine that a team can basically choose to be on the "small revenue" list and take welfare.
     
  2. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    I think the Marlins, Pirates and Royals can afford much more with the revenue sharing they get.
     
  3. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    What OOP fails to understand is that there is no evidence that paying ALL of those players would make the team a money-loser.
     
  4. Machine Head

    Machine Head Well-Known Member

    I know better than to parachute in to a thread, but my posts were just to give the facts of the deals that the Twins offered Santana and Hunter.

    That said, I wouldn't do either of the deals Santana and Hunter ended up with if I was the Twins.
     
  5. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Actually, there is no proof that they could have afforded them, yet you keep bleating about it as an absolute certainty.

    I'm sorry that you can't handle the fact that teams in mid-sized and smaller markets have to make choices that other teams don't have to make. Wake me when you decide to return to reality.
     
  6. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    No, MLB doesn't shove the big-market teams down everybody's throats at all. Hell, we never see the Red Sox or Yankees on television (and please don't try to tell me that is just ESPN and MLB doesn't agree with it).
     
  7. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    Hi guys. Have I missed anything?
     
  8. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    So, you are saying MLB wants to fix the game in the Yankees' favor. Please explain that to Bubbler, ok?
     
  9. spnited

    spnited Active Member


    Nah. Same old shit from all the usual suspects
     
  10. Machine Head

    Machine Head Well-Known Member

    Wait, I haven't posted Favre pics on this thread.
     
  11. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    There is a lot of proof of late that the Pirates could have afforded Jason Bay, or the Marlins could have afforded Miguel Cabrera, or the A's could have afforded any of the half-dozen players they let walk. It's not the Yankees' fault that those owners chose to count their money instead. It isn't a great leap to think other owners are doing the same thing.

    I know I already said once that I'm out of this, and then I got sucked back in, but now I've learned my lesson. NFL good, MLB bad. Got it.
     
  12. spnited

    spnited Active Member


    Absolutely.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page