$206 million dollars already and counting

Illusion · 08-01-06, 06:59 PM

The boss does not care. The Yankees will have to pay another steep luxury tax again this year. I also think baseball needs a cap, but atleast the current system has slowed teams like the Yankees down a bit. Just look at how many teams are competitive now. Imagine how much better it would be with a cap.

JoshW · 08-01-06, 07:09 PM

I love that throwing money around isn't enough to win in baseball. At the same time is cool when an owner cares about winning so much that he is willing to do it. They will get another WS sooner or later.

Hulu · 08-01-06, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by bigboydan

that is just completely nuts !! ... MLB needs a salary cap really bad right now, and follow the NFL,NBA,and NHL bussiness model.

Couldn't agree more. The luxury tax did help a bit but they really need a solid, enforceable cap with teeth.

This really tarnishes baseball for me because just like English Premiership soccer, you always know who the contenders are going to be. Sure, smaller market teams can compensate by making smart moves and with a strong minor league system but by and large, you know who's going to be near the top of the heap every season.

I know this would never and could never happen, but instead of giving home field in the WS to the all-star game winner, I'd rather see it go to the team with the smaller payroll.

Willie Bee · 08-01-06, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Hulu

I know this would never and could never happen, but instead of giving home field in the WS to the all-star game winner, I'd rather see it go to the team with the smaller payroll.

You get my vote for Commissioner based on this idea alone

The only problem is the players union is never going to allow a cap. Neither the owners nor the players seem to realize that they're slowly choking the game off in regards to the dollars lost to other sports.

isetcap · 08-01-06, 11:58 PM

Great idea by Hulu.

What I want to know is how it can be that football players have such crappy deals compared to baseball players? I mean baseball players get better deals, their money is guaranteed, and their careers are longer. Football players get pathetic deals, the majority of their money is not guaranteed, and its much more likely that an injury could end there earning power instantly. The owners in football just have a chokehold on the sport and that is part of why it is so successful. They keep their labor costs in check. Every time a baseball strike is discussed I can't help but place blame on the players. The players in all the sports should look at what happened to hockey. Did they play hockey this year? Is that why Mudcat is missing?

Willie Bee · 08-02-06, 08:31 AM

Football owners beat that players union back in 1987. Baseball owners might have been able to beat the MLBPA in 1994-95, but the baseball owners caved and let petty, personal differences between them basically create the mess we have today.

bigboydan · 08-02-06, 12:31 PM

these baseball owners probly still feel the sting of that collusion incident from the 80's. maybe thats part of the reason why there not united anymore ?

Razz · 08-02-06, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by lakerfan

I love that throwing money around isn't enough to win in baseball.

I don't know about that. I can't remember the last team in the bottom half of payroll won a playoff series.

Bulldog · 08-02-06, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Razz

I don't know about that. I can't remember the last team in the bottom half of payroll won a playoff series.

Well I dont know, I'm pretty sure the Marlins had a low payroll in 2003 and the Angels in 2002...
And I dont think Chicago had a top 10 payroll last year either but I might be wrong.
Its still a pretty sticky issue for me, I think luxury tax helps, as for a full cap I'm not sure. I think enough teams are competitive with the Wild Card and all...

isetcap · 08-02-06, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Razz

I don't know about that. I can't remember the last team in the bottom half of payroll won a playoff series.

Yeah, a cheap team can have a nice feelgood season and maybe even make it into the first round of the playoffs but then it's bye bye. If you want to win it all you have to spend money, maybe not the most money, but you still have to be up there. Of this year's batch there is only one team from the bottom half of the payroll scale that can say they have a good chance at a playoff run and that is Minnesota (19) (maybe someone can argue for Oakland (21)). All the other teams that are genuine playoff contenders are in the top half of payrolls and that includes Detroit.

Detroit (14)
St Louis (11)
NY Mets (5)
Chic WS (4)
LA Angels (3)
Boston (2)
NY Yanks (1)

isetcap · 08-02-06, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Bulldog

Well I dont know, I'm pretty sure the Marlins had a low payroll in 2003 and the Angels in 2002...
And I dont think Chicago had a top 10 payroll last year either but I might be wrong.
Its still a pretty sticky issue for me, I think luxury tax helps, as for a full cap I'm not sure. I think enough teams are competitive with the Wild Card and all...

The 2003 Marlins were a notable exception but it's somewhat deceptive in that many of their players were severely underpaid from a value standpoint and in contract years. That is why the team was essentially gone the next year because their real value would have put them well into the top 10.

Bulldog · 08-02-06, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by isetcap

The 2003 Marlins were a notable exception but it's somewhat deceptive in that many of their players were severely underpaid from a value standpoint and in contract years. That is why the team was essentially gone the next year because their real value would have put them well into the top 10.

I agree, Im just saying its possible...
I think you can make a case that most of baseball teams can be competitive with a middle size payroll, maybe not the bottom third. But the one sport were we had a dynasty or close to it is football with all its parity. I mean Im playing Devils advocate here but...

Razz · 08-02-06, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Bulldog

Well I dont know, I'm pretty sure the Marlins had a low payroll in 2003 and the Angels in 2002...
And I dont think Chicago had a top 10 payroll last year either but I might be wrong.
Its still a pretty sticky issue for me, I think luxury tax helps, as for a full cap I'm not sure. I think enough teams are competitive with the Wild Card and all...

Good eye, I forgot about the Marlins. They were 20th of 30 teams. The 2002 Angels were barely in the top half of all teams, at 15th. The 2004 Red Sox were 2nd and the 2005 White Sox were 13th.

Bulldog · 08-02-06, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Razz

Good eye, I forgot about the Marlins. They were 20th of 30 teams. The 2002 Angels were barely in the top half of all teams, at 15th. The 2004 Red Sox were 2nd and the 2005 White Sox were 13th.

Interesting... thanks for the info Razz.

bigboydan · 12-24-06, 07:30 PM

I would have thought it would have been more than this

The Yankees were slapped with a $26 million luxury tax by the commissioner's office Friday, raising New York's total to $97.75 million over the last four years.

The Yankees spend all this money and haven't won the World Series since 2000.

...It just goes to show you that you can't buy a championship nowadays.

jjgold · 12-25-06, 07:55 AM

Yanks will go down again in the news year, old team.