Red Sox owner now for salary cap

[Desnudo]

This wouldn't be sour grapes would it? Especially considering that the Sox easily are in second place for highest salary.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

[McSweeny]

granted they have the second highest payroll, but they are being outspent by 70 million dollars. I do not think it is sour grapes as he does make a few good points. However, i think his timing could have been better

though he did do a great job provoking GS into making some pretty dumbassish comments which may have been the idea all along

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by McSweeny

granted they have the second highest payroll, but they are being outspent by 70 million dollars. I do not think it is sour grapes as he does make a few good points. However, i think his timing could have been better

though he did do a great job provoking GS into making some pretty dumbassish comments which may have been the idea all along

The only other point is that the way the Yankees could get A-Rod is the same way the Red Sox could get Foulke. Same concept...

[Ksyrup]

There are 30 teams, and baseball needs a salary cap because of 1 of them? If anything, the fact that the Red Sox would (or could) not make the A-Rod trade demonstrates that baseball has a Yankees problem, and it is not so widespread as to need a salary cap. Every other team appears to have some financial limit it cannot cross - only the Yankees can continue to spend.

A salary cap is not the answer; increased revenue sharing of gate receipts is a legitimate possibility, as that might help Georgie feel the pain, so to speak.

[rkmsuf]

Yes but the Red Sox can apply the same financial pressure on clubs that the Yankees apply on them...

It is mostly a Yankee problem but the Red Sox at 130 million or so have the same 70 million advantage over some clubs that the Yankees have over them...

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

It is mostly a Yankee problem but the Red Sox at 130 million or so have the same 70 million advantage over some clubs that the Yankees have over them...

But that advantage isn't that much of an advantage. As long as they feel the pinch, the luxury tax works. I think plenty of teams have proven that you don't need to have a $75-125M payroll to win.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But that advantage isn't that much of an advantage. As long as they feel the pinch, the luxury tax works. I think plenty of teams have proven that you don't need to have a $75-125M payroll to win.

The A's would have loved to keep Foulke. They'd love to keep Chavez. Ain't happening.

Anyone can rise up and win will a small payroll and in a disadvantage but it's like playing Hold Em when the Yankees are allowed 4 hole cards and everyone else two. Sure you can beat them but overall you lose.

That also translates to 130 million vs 60 million in payroll...

Back to the Yankees, I doubt there's a realistic tax that has any effect on them. What they pull in 300 or so million a year and that's just scratching the surface of YES. Imagine they finally get decent luxury suite and a ballpark on the West Side over near the WTC. The difference is sure to increase...

[McSweeny]

well Chavez and the A's are very close to an extension and one will probably happen according to his agent...

sorry to threadjack back to the discussion

Henry's point is more that the Yankees totally disregard the tax threshold while every other team is doing it's best not to go over it. So the tax works for the most part, except for the Yankees which is more or less Henry's point i think

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by McSweeny

well Chavez and the A's are very close to an extension and one will probably happen according to his agent...

sorry to threadjack back to the discussion

Henry's point is more that the Yankees totally disregard the tax threshold while every other team is doing it's best not to go over it. So the tax works for the most part, except for the Yankees which is more or less Henry's point i think

Yeah maybe Chavez wasn't a good example...

Like it or not the tax has no effect on NY and yes one team can ruin it for the whole league. I agree to the point that in our lifetimes, as currently constructed, baseball is headed towards a form like in Japan where they have lots of team in Tokyo and hardly any anywhere else.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think there should be a salary cap in baseball. That being said, screw the freaking Red Sox. They always want to play the role of the little guy or the underdog, while they sit with the second highest pay-roll in baseball. I hate the Yankees. They are the Evil Empire, but I have no love for the Red Sox either. I used to like them, sympathize with them, even as late as last year, but since then, I just can't. They have become evil to fight evil. Sad, but true.

[rkmsuf]

That's kind of my point. I'm a Sox fan but see the comparison to how the Yankees bully them to how Boston can push around other teams.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

That's kind of my point. I'm a Sox fan but see the comparison to how the Yankees bully them to how Boston can push around other teams.

That's my thinking also. For example, Toronto must be extremely frustrated to be in the same division. They have an up and coming team that will likely go nowhere in the East, but would have a good chance in the Central division. What's interesting is that the only reason the Sox' payroll is $120 million is because of the Yankees. If the Yankees ceased operations tomorrow, I think you'd see the Red Sox payroll down to the $75-90 million range within a few years. $120 Mil. is pretty much the upper limit of what the Red Sox can afford to spend without incurring a pretty large loss. That will be the case as long as they keep playing at Fenway.

[ScottVib]

I'm a Sox fan... and I do agree with much of Henry said. Baseball is flawed, it needs some stronger form of salary control.

That said Steinbrenner is absolutely right in his response, he went out and got it done. There isn't a fan in America who would complain if he was the owner of their favorite team (at least when they are winning with his spending... if he messes things up like the late 80s, then the Yankees can keep the Big Stein).

They both are right.. the problem was the messenger... having the owner of the Yankees biggest rival and the #2 payroll in baseball is absolutely the wrong person to deliver the message. Perhaps Carl Pohlad or Stephen Schott or another small market owner would have been better people to have spoken up.

[Subby]

Revenue sharing does not work. Not every owner is committed to winning and will just take that money and shove it in their big fat wallet. The only thing that works is a salary cap tied to revenues. It wiorks like a charm for the NFL and NBA and should be adopted post-haste for the NHL and MLB...

[John Galt]

What does the luxury tax encourage in baseball? Similarly, what would a salary cap encourage?

1) More owners just in it for the quick money who don't care about winning. Baseball is already full of 4 to 5 year owners who take the massive depriciation tax break, publicity, and revenue sharing checks and don't field a competitive team. Every restriction and redistribution effort encourages more of these owners.

2) Owners to not take chances and overspend. Overspending is usually a good thing for sports leagues. It encourages long term business planning and allows market correction to work. If every owner can just blame the cap for inaction, the sport suffers.

Now, the topic is revenue sharing is totally different. I strongly support more revenue sharing, but it is almost impossible in baseball. Unlike the NBA and NFL, baseball's primary revenue is local not national. Sharing local revenue sounds easy except that tearms like the Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers (when Fox owned), and Cardinals have very creative ways to avoid sharing. The Cubs have long been a culprit in this regard since the Tribune owns the team and controls the TV contract. The result is that they create a waaaayyyy below market TV contract because they don't care whether the Cubs or WGN is the one who makes money. There have been a couple decent ideas for better revenue sharing (I like Zimablist's approach), but they all have major logistical problems.

Baseball has always had economic disparity, but a cap or luxury tax are not the answer. Revenue sharing may be the solution, but it is damn hard to implement.

[rkmsuf]

What is bad about having a league where each team draws from the same available pool of resources to field a winner? That's a payroll cap both high and low.

I don't see how that is not an answer...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

What is bad about having a league where each team draws from the same available pool of resources to field a winner? That's a payroll cap both high and low.

I don't see how that is not an answer...

Where do you set the cap? In baseball it isn't easy as the NBA or the NFL because the revenue disparity is extreme. When local, not national, revenues drive the league, cities like NY have major advantages.

So what do you do? Put the cap at $50 million - not a chance because it screws the players big time. How about $75 - maybe, but the players are still hurt a lot by not having teams bid up contracts and you already having the problem of teams not being able to be profitable and come near the cap. At $100 million, only 2 or 3 teams will come close to the cap.

Baseball has natural disparities that aren't like the other major sports and can't be corrected the same way. You want a real solution - put a team in Manhattan, DC, and maybe a second one in Boston.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Where do you set the cap? In baseball it isn't easy as the NBA or the NFL because the revenue disparity is extreme. When local, not national, revenues drive the league, cities like NY have major advantages.

So what do you do? Put the cap at $50 million - not a chance because it screws the players big time. How about $75 - maybe, but the players are still hurt a lot by not having teams bid up contracts and you already having the problem of teams not being able to be profitable and come near the cap. At $100 million, only 2 or 3 teams will come close to the cap.

Baseball has natural disparities that aren't like the other major sports and can't be corrected the same way. You want a real solution - put a team in Manhattan, DC, and maybe a second one in Boston.

To me those disparities are self created. Now I'm speaking from a purely fan perspective and looking at a broad view of the game.

Of course going from what is in place now to a cap structure hurts the guys like A-Rod and the upper end. I could give a rats ass about those guys. Overall it would seem that with more teams in the market for players the whole spectrum of salaries would be somewhat unaffected.

I've maintained earlier that the future of the game will mirror Japan as presently constitued. You will see additional teams in the big markets. That won't save the small ones though.

I'll leave it to the experts to find the right level but it seems like a revenue sharing structure along with a high/low payroll cap works best for the industry. If you don't care about the industry then you'll get 4 teams in NY, 2 in Boston, ect...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

To me those disparities are self created. Now I'm speaking from a purely fan perspective and looking at a broad view of the game.

Of course going from what is in place now to a cap structure hurts the guys like A-Rod and the upper end. I could give a rats ass about those guys. Overall it would seem that with more teams in the market for players the whole spectrum of salaries would be somewhat unaffected.

I've maintained earlier that the future of the game will mirror Japan as presently constitued. You will see additional teams in the big markets. That won't save the small ones though.

I'll leave it to the experts to find the right level but it seems like a revenue sharing structure along with a high/low payroll cap works best for the industry. If you don't care about the industry then you'll get 4 teams in NY, 2 in Boston, ect...

First off, the effect on the players is no trivial point from a fan's perspective. We are talking about a league that has an antitrust exemption and has shown an inclination toward collusion. Also, the players must approve any cap. In the NBA or NFL that was possible because the disparities weren't so big. And what do you mean the disparities are self created?

And I'm not just talking about players at the upper end, I'm talking about an economy of scale. Baseball is already a hard enough sport to break into. Teams "own" you in the minors and it is hard to get young athletes to play a game that doesn't offer them immediate access to the major leagues.

As to more major markets getting teams, it would be ideal, but will never happen. Unfortunately, the location monopoly rule (which normally would violate antitrust laws) is keeping a team out of DC even though Baltimore is outside the mile range in the rules. Another team in NYC would be even harder. However, if you wan't to go with any change, I think this is the best of all worlds.

As for leaving the issue of cap amount to the experts, you can feel free to do so, but why do you think there isn't a cap? It is easy to just say, "they should have a cap" without going into specifics. The problem is the specifics don't work when applied to baseball. Ignoring that point ignores the whole issue.

[tucker342]

The problem is, the players union would have to be willing to go to a salary cap (wouldn't they?)... So there's no way the players union would accept a cap of 50 mil

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Ha. Baseball sucks. It's sucked for years and it will go right on sucking until they implement a hard salary cap and revenue sharing.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Ha. Baseball sucks. It's sucked for years and it will go right on sucking until they implement a hard salary cap and revenue sharing.

And again, how do you suggest that be done (see my problems above)?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by John Galt

First off, the effect on the players is no trivial point from a fan's perspective. We are talking about a league that has an antitrust exemption and has shown an inclination toward collusion. Also, the players must approve any cap. In the NBA or NFL that was possible because the disparities weren't so big. And what do you mean the disparities are self created?

And I'm not just talking about players at the upper end, I'm talking about an economy of scale. Baseball is already a hard enough sport to break into. Teams "own" you in the minors and it is hard to get young athletes to play a game that doesn't offer them immediate access to the major leagues.

As to more major markets getting teams, it would be ideal, but will never happen. Unfortunately, the location monopoly rule (which normally would violate antitrust laws) is keeping a team out of DC even though Baltimore is outside the mile range in the rules. Another team in NYC would be even harder. However, if you wan't to go with any change, I think this is the best of all worlds.

As for leaving the issue of cap amount to the experts, you can feel free to do so, but why do you think there isn't a cap? It is easy to just say, "they should have a cap" without going into specifics. The problem is the specifics don't work when applied to baseball. Ignoring that point ignores the whole issue.

So if all of that is true they should just come out and say "It is what it is folks...live with it."

There should be no static, the lesserlights should just pocket the revenue sharing and we'll watch the Yankees go to 7 or the next 10 World Series.

There are solutions but unfortunately the almight dollar and egos are smack in the middle. When you don't solve these problems early you may never solve them. Football had the fortune to iron this out before the media explosion. Defend baseball all you want but there's no denying that the current way it is conducted is less than ideal...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

So if all of that is true they should just come out and say "It is what it is folks...live with it."

There should be no static, the lesserlights should just pocket the revenue sharing and we'll watch the Yankees go to 7 or the next 10 World Series.

There are solutions but unfortunately the almight dollar and egos are smack in the middle. When you don't solve these problems early you may never solve them. Football had the fortune to iron this out before the media explosion. Defend baseball all you want but there's no denying that the current way it is conducted is less than ideal...

I don't know why you think the Yankees will be in 7 of the next 10 World Series. They haven't won one since they became the highest spenders in the league (the Dodgers and Sox were ahead of them when they actually won championships). They have made it to a few lately, but the team is in decline because they have a bunch of old players in decline locked up to long contracts.

And the "almighty dollar" is not the problem - the problem is that people see redistributing the "almighty dollar" as the solution. What baseball needs is more owners who don't mind losing money and who want to win at all costs. The disparities of local revenue can be reduced, but are pretty much inevitable. Adopting a cap or increasing the tax will only encourage more corporate and/or Pohlad type ownership - that is not good for baseball.

People may think the current system isn't ideal, but given the 162 game season and the resultant dependence on local revenues, there really isn't another good solution out there.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I don't know why you think the Yankees will be in 7 of the next 10 World Series. They haven't won one since they became the highest spenders in the league (the Dodgers and Sox were ahead of them when they actually won championships). They have made it to a few lately, but the team is in decline because they have a bunch of old players in decline locked up to long contracts.

And the "almighty dollar" is not the problem - the problem is that people see redistributing the "almighty dollar" as the solution. What baseball needs is more owners who don't mind losing money and who want to win at all costs. The disparities of local revenue can be reduced, but are pretty much inevitable. Adopting a cap or increasing the tax will only encourage more corporate and/or Pohlad type ownership - that is not good for baseball.

People may think the current system isn't ideal, but given the 162 game season and the resultant dependence on local revenues, there really isn't another good solution out there.

NY has been in 6 of the last 7 World Series.

Winning it all is somewhat not relevant but they have won their share. I don't see how you can project that they won't do well considering they can pretty much buy whatever talent they see fit. 200, 250, 300 million? Even a dufus like Cashman can succeed with those resources.

I'd love for you to find some owners that relish losing money but winning. There are precious few. You cannot depend on that...if that was the case you'd have people lining up to buy the Expos...

I don't pretend to have the solution I only maintain that what's there now is deadly to the health of the game...I'm one of the lucky ones who is a Red Sox fan. I can't imagine having an ounce of interest if I was say a Tigers or Brewers fan...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

NY has been in 6 of the last 7 World Series.

Winning it all is somewhat not relevant but they have won their share. I don't see how you can project that they won't do well considering they can pretty much buy whatever talent they see fit. 200, 250, 300 million? Even a dufus like Cashman can succeed with those resources.

I'd love for you to find some owners that relish losing money but winning. There are precious few. You cannot depend on that...if that was the case you'd have people lining up to buy the Expos...

I don't pretend to have the solution I only maintain that what's there now is deadly to the health of the game...I'm one of the lucky ones who is a Red Sox fan. I can't imagine having an ounce of interest if I was say a Tigers or Brewers fan...

Again, I don't see why you think the Yankees will spend that much. Despite media reports of a burgeoning payroll, the Yankees payroll is pretty much the same as last year's. $180 million is a lot of dough, but I don't think you will see salaries anywhere close to $250 or $300 million for a long, long time.

As to small market fans, look at Oakland, Minnesota (despite horrible ownership), Anaheim, Arizona, and Florida for teams that have succeeded with lesser payrolls. Sure, any one of them is less likely to succeed than a big market team, but overall they are not out of it. Slow power shifting, IMO, creates a longer term fan base than does parity. The NFL will do well for a couple more years of constant turnover, but ultimately, I think a league that can't generate dynasties is boring. There is just no reason to personally "invest" in a team. That is why I think the NBA has done it right (and it has a lot of natural advantages) - it has dynasties, a good revenue sharing plan (that wouldn't work for baseball), and limited player turnover. I wish MLB could have a similar system, but the structure of the sport just doesn't allow for it.

[rkmsuf]

People don't "invest" the same way in football as in baseball. You really can't compare them due to the event nature of football.

To me it's all about winning. When a team wins, fans come. Teams lose fans don't.

IMO basketball is horrible right now since once you are in the crapper it's just blind luck that you ever come out of it. One or two guys can dominate a roster and the salary rules are so complicated that nobody really knows what is going on. Heck you are trading for guys that you can get rid of at the end of the year...that's not good.

My only point to the whole debate is that I don't see a benefit to structuring a league without competive balance. It's like giving Ben Johnson a 3 yard headshart. Maybe you'll beat him on some days but normally you won't.

Watch at the trading deadline...if somehow NY isn't comfortable watch who they get and I'd guess their payroll ends up over 200...

[Neuqua]

I thought Steinbrenner's response to Henry's comments was absolutely brilliant.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And again, how do you suggest that be done (see my problems above)?

Frankly, I could care less how they solve it. They have plenty of smart people, I'm sure that if they made league parity a priority it would not be hard to come up with some solutions. Clearly it is not a priority.

I used to be a huge fan of the league, knew all the players, all the stats, all the everything, but at this point they could drop off the face of the earth for all I care. I don't even know who the good players are anymore. Football fixed this problem brilliantly, other sports can follow their lead, and if they don't... it's their loss.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I don't pretend to have the solution I only maintain that what's there now is deadly to the health of the game...I'm one of the lucky ones who is a Red Sox fan. I can't imagine having an ounce of interest if I was say a Tigers or Brewers fan...

Haha! Funny you should say that. I'm from Wisconsin, and back when I cared about the game my two favorite teams were the Brewers and the Tigers

[CraigSca]

I think it's unfair that the Yankees have the huge revenue that the other clubs don't have access to. However, I'm against a salary cap. People say baseball will continue to go downhill as opposed to football -- but I see football wallowing in mediocrity and roster turnover that makes anyone but the quarterback/runningback/wide receiver unrecognizeable.

If anything, the spending by the Yankees just makes them a bigger target and will make me cheer harder for them to come up short in the World Series (again).

[Ryan S]

If MLB (or the NHL) goes the way of the NFL and the NBA in implementing a salary cap, I think that would be a huge mistake.

People may enjoy seeing different teams go to the Super Bowl every year, but I think the parity in the NFL sucks.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

If MLB (or the NHL) goes the way of the NFL and the NBA in implementing a salary cap, I think that would be a huge mistake.

People may enjoy seeing different teams go to the Super Bowl every year, but I think the parity in the NFL sucks.

Yeah I really dug watching the Cowboys, Steelers, Redskins, Giants and 49ers dominate everyone else for twenty five years.

[AgPete]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

I thought Steinbrenner's response to Henry's comments was absolutely brilliant.

I have no love for the Yankees but I thought that response to the Sox was funny as hell. It does look like sour grapes for the Sox.

[CamEdwards]

huge Red Sox fan, but John Henry's wrong on this one. Steinbrenner's spent more and more and more and more, and it hasn't worked over the past few years.

In fact, I'll make a bold prediction that the Yankees will not win the World Series in 2004.

[Young Drachma]

Exactly, because the Blue Jays will.

I hate all the money grubbing in baseball too, but at the end of the day, people here are forgetting that the Angels, Marlins and Diamondbacks have won three of the last four World Series titles. Two of those teams were not even close to being favored. Baseball has developed that sort of competition without need for a salary cap. I think the best thing that happened to baseball was opening up the playoffs to more teams.

That, more than anything else will combat the money grubbing because it gives more teams a shot to play. But no one talks about it, because baseball is the one sport where the regular season actually matters. That said, I like the plan that would create one more Wild Card, have them play a one-game playoff against the other Wild Card for the right to play in the Division Series.

But a salary cap in baseball is just bad news, IMHO.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Again, I don't see why you think the Yankees will spend that much. Despite media reports of a burgeoning payroll, the Yankees payroll is pretty much the same as last year's. $180 million is a lot of dough, but I don't think you will see salaries anywhere close to $250 or $300 million for a long, long time.

As to small market fans, look at Oakland, Minnesota (despite horrible ownership), Anaheim, Arizona, and Florida for teams that have succeeded with lesser payrolls. Sure, any one of them is less likely to succeed than a big market team, but overall they are not out of it. Slow power shifting, IMO, creates a longer term fan base than does parity. The NFL will do well for a couple more years of constant turnover, but ultimately, I think a league that can't generate dynasties is boring. There is just no reason to personally "invest" in a team. That is why I think the NBA has done it right (and it has a lot of natural advantages) - it has dynasties, a good revenue sharing plan (that wouldn't work for baseball), and limited player turnover. I wish MLB could have a similar system, but the structure of the sport just doesn't allow for it.

I usually agree with you about sports business, JG. But I totally disagree about the NBA. The NBA is terrible. Dynasties in the NBA are built on luck and the Commisioner allowing some teams to get away with tampering with draftees and Free Agents rather than good management.

I also hate that teams can be good (50-win level) for 10+ years, and we know that they will never get over the hump because of the arcane salary matching rules for transactions between teams. You can take the Bulls as the only team in the past ~15 years where you can say that it was based on management rather than luck or rule bending. But in that stretch the Knicks, Pacers, Sonics were consistently good and we all knew they had no shot at the title. It's too difficult to improve a good team to an excellent one.

As for baseball, what they should do is indemnify the rich teams for all the money they are going to lose from the implementation of an effective revenue sharing system. That way when Steinbrenner sells the Yanks for $650 million instead of $1 billion, he won't be able to complain because he's already picked up the difference. The poorer teams would have to fork the money over and treat it like an investment in their future. Eventually, they'll get that money back in increased revenues.

Unfortunately-- as has been pointed out already-- some of these owners just want a free ride. They don't really want to work at solving the problem.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

It's like giving Ben Johnson a 3 yard headshart.

So instead, you want to cut off one of his legs to make it fair, create some competitive balance with weaker opponents? No, wait a minute, that's not what you're saying.

We'd only amputate in the event some of his competitors didn't grow up with/don't currently have the same financial resources (for training & development) that he does.

MLB is a sport, it's also a business. Teams/cities/their fans should either crack open a can of STFU & compete or find something else to do. But for the love of Pete, I'm burned out of the "small-market / small-budget teams can't compete" whine.

Check the last few seasons, they're not only competing, some of them are winning.

{edited to add: I'm not aiming that STFU/whining thing at you directly, I just happened to springboard off your Ben Johnson analogy. The latter part is a more generic rant.}

[Ksyrup]

Baseball moves much more slowly than other sports both on AND off the field. The game is leisurely, and so is the historical movement. Rather than the Cowboys becoming a "dynasty" in 3 or 4 years, in baseball, a dynasty builds over a period of years, even decades. Things have a way of evening out in the long term in baseball. History has shows that even the richest teams will go through low periods, and lowly teams will eventually rise up, once they employ some smart decision-makers. In today's game, the rich might be able to get back up quicker, but that might not necessarily be the case - we don't know yet.

Look at the Chicago Bulls - an obvious dynasty in the 90's. Once that team finally got so old that they needed to start all over, they did just what they should have done - clear cap space and empty the roster to bring in fresh blood. And what happened? No one wanted to play for Reinsdorf and Tubby. If the Yankees continue to do what they are doing right now, they will fall out of contention, get old, and have to starting buying all over. And who knows? By then, free agents might look at NY like they did Chicago - it's not worth the money to play for an owner who does more harm than good.

Certain cities/teams/owners fall out of favor, and no amount of money will help. I'm sure Steinbrenner will convince a few free agents to take the cash, but if this super-team doesn't win it all - or worse, can't even make the playoffs - people are going to realize that it's not all about how many all-stars you can employ.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So instead, you want to cut off one of his legs to make it fair, create some competitive balance with weaker opponents? No, wait a minute, that's not what you're saying.

We'd only amputate in the event some of his competitors didn't grow up with/don't currently have the same financial resources (for training & development) that he does.

MLB is a sport, it's also a business. Teams/cities/their fans should either crack open a can of STFU & compete or find something else to do. But for the love of Pete, I'm burned out of the "small-market / small-budget teams can't compete" whine.

Check the last few seasons, they're not only competing, some of them are winning.

{edited to add: I'm not aiming that STFU/whining thing at you directly, I just happened to springboard off your Ben Johnson analogy. The latter part is a more generic rant.}

I prefer, as a fan, to see a league where you don't inherently enjoy an advantage.

So if I follow you and your objection to the Ben Johnson point we should sit back and watch as Ben continually races the likes of Dom Delousie, Horatio Sanz and Pee Wee Herman and enjoy the competiton?

That's extreme but it's kind of like that when you line up NY and Tampa 19 times a year...

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

That's extreme but it's kind of like that when you line up NY and Tampa 19 times a year...

Tampa is a horribly run franchise. All leagues have shit franchises that are the whipping boys of their leagues. Throw Toronto, or even Baltimore (possibly, though their pitching stinks) in there, and I think the odds increase considerably for the "little guy."

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Tampa is a horribly run franchise. All leagues have shit franchises that are the whipping boys of their leagues. Throw Toronto, or even Baltimore (possibly, though their pitching stinks) in there, and I think the odds increase considerably for the "little guy."

I'd say the odds of any of those teams finishing ahead of the Yankees in the 2004 season are about the same as Dom Delouise beating Ben Johnson in a hundred yard dash...

[Ksyrup]

That wasn't what you said. You said match them up 19 times a season. And I said that Toronto or Baltimore would fair significantly better than throwing one of the worst teams in the majors in their as the competition for 19 games.

I think Toronto could have a legitimate shot this year or next, but obviously, some things would have to "break" (the arms/legs of teh Red Sox or Yankees) for them to have a shot. Wild card is not entirely out of the picture, though, if the Yankees, Blue Jays, and Red Sox beat up on each other.

[rkmsuf]

If you arrange for an A-Rod broken arm I'll agree with everything you say...

[Ksyrup]

Leave A-Rod alone, I think the breaks, bumps, and bruises could hit Kevin Brown, Rivera, Giambi, Bernie Williams, Kenny Lofton, etc., without needing to consult Vinny.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

I thought Steinbrenner's response to Henry's comments was absolutely brilliant.

Quoted for truth.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

So if I follow you and your objection to the Ben Johnson point we should sit back and watch as Ben continually races the likes of Dom Delousie, Horatio Sanz and Pee Wee Herman and enjoy the competiton?

If Dom, Horatio, & Pee Wee are the other entrants, then the choice becomes yours whether to watch or go do something else.

But since you didn't mention that trio being the only other entrants, I assume they're out there with Ben and other, more viable, competitors.

If that's the case, maybe Ben & the others aren't the problem that needs to be addressed.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If Dom, Horatio, & Pee Wee are the other entrants, then the choice becomes yours whether to watch or go do something else.

But since you didn't mention that trio being the only other entrants, I assume they're out there with Ben and other, more viable, competitors.

If that's the case, maybe Ben & the others aren't the problem that needs to be addressed.

That may be true and the million dollar question I guess is how do you get full fields of viable competitors...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

That may be true and the million dollar question I guess is how do you get full fields of viable competitors...

One of the first steps is to determine the number of viable competitors and not let your fields out of line with that number.

[Bubba Wheels]

Reminds me about the old definition of a Conservative...a Liberal who has been mugged!