Silver Lining

jetman67 · 10-27-2003, 09:53 AM

The payrol argument is now DEAD!!! The team with a low payrol won the world series over a the most expensive team in baseball.

PFSIKH · 10-27-2003, 02:11 PM

No it ain't.

The only reason you were in the position is because of the cash.

Rockaway Mike · 10-27-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PFSIKH@Oct 27 2003, 03:11 PM
No it ain't.

The only reason you were in the position is because of the cash.

So is Billy Beane right when he said that the only reason Boston beat the A's is because they had more money?

RichardSeymour · 10-27-2003, 03:13 PM

he's not completely right but he's not completely wrong.

Teams with high payroll don't just do well because they have high payroll, but they DO have a competitive advantage.

If Beane had had the money to keep Giambi (ok bad example, heh), Damon, sign FAs, etc, yes it very well might have been a different series.

The Boston Red Sox have a significant competitive advantage over the Athletics. The Yankees have a significant competitive advantage over the Red Sox and a HUGE one over the As or Marlins.

Look at the Marlins. low payroll but they made ALL the right moves. Signed Pudge, almost had to trade Lowell because of FA but didn't because they thought they could make a run.

They probably (certainly) will not be able to resign Pudge, Lowell, and eventually Penny and that Josh Beckett kid without a lot new revenue or those players being willing to take substantially less money to stay in FL.

Look at the Yankees. This year they made ALL the wrong moves. Trading their only really great prospect for a 3b who performed poorly. weak lineup in the clutch, no middle relief.... and they game within two games of winning it all.

I realistically understand that the current system enormously favors the top teams, of which the Red Sox are one. However as a baseball fan I believe that the current system is ruining the sport on a national level.

Any intellectually honest Yankees fans out there?

Anyone who disagrees please answer me these questions....

1. If it's not about payroll, would be comfortable with the Yankees trading many of their large contracts and limiting themselves to the Red Sox payroll? This could be acheived by not replacing Clemens or Wells or Pettitte, trading Bernie Williams, Jason Giambi, Karsay, and Contreras, without spending ANY new money. (most of those contracts are realistically untradable, but lets imagine they could be moved).

2. Same question but with the Marlins payroll?

3. Do the Yankees ever have to let a player leave the team because they can't afford him, ie. A Rod in Seattle, Giambi in Oakland, Damon in KC, possibly Nomar or Pedro in 04.... if not, is that an advantage?

4. If there was a firm salary cap in baseball, would the Yankees still be as good relative to the rest of the league?

mbn007 · 10-27-2003, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PFSIKH@Oct 27 2003, 03:11 PM
No it ain't.

The only reason you were in the position is because of the cash.

Your signature is misleading. No mention of the 26 World Championships. That's a .667 winning percentage.

Deceptive advertising. Typical Red Sox fan smack. Looking for a silver lining wherever they can find one. To bad there isn't one with your team.

shawn306 · 10-27-2003, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardSeymour@Oct 27 2003, 04:13 PM
he's not completely right but he's not completely wrong.

Teams with high payroll don't just do well because they have high payroll, but they DO have a competitive advantage.

If Beane had had the money to keep Giambi (ok bad example, heh), Damon, sign FAs, etc, yes it very well might have been a different series.

The Boston Red Sox have a significant competitive advantage over the Athletics. The Yankees have a significant competitive advantage over the Red Sox and a HUGE one over the As or Marlins.

Look at the Marlins. low payroll but they made ALL the right moves. Signed Pudge, almost had to trade Lowell because of FA but didn't because they thought they could make a run.

They probably (certainly) will not be able to resign Pudge, Lowell, and eventually Penny and that Josh Beckett kid without a lot new revenue or those players being willing to take substantially less money to stay in FL.

Look at the Yankees. This year they made ALL the wrong moves. Trading their only really great prospect for a 3b who performed poorly. weak lineup in the clutch, no middle relief.... and they game within two games of winning it all.

I realistically understand that the current system enormously favors the top teams, of which the Red Sox are one. However as a baseball fan I believe that the current system is ruining the sport on a national level.

Any intellectually honest Yankees fans out there?

Anyone who disagrees please answer me these questions....

1. If it's not about payroll, would be comfortable with the Yankees trading many of their large contracts and limiting themselves to the Red Sox payroll? This could be acheived by not replacing Clemens or Wells or Pettitte, trading Bernie Williams, Jason Giambi, Karsay, and Contreras, without spending ANY new money. (most of those contracts are realistically untradable, but lets imagine they could be moved).

2. Same question but with the Marlins payroll?

3. Do the Yankees ever have to let a player leave the team because they can't afford him, ie. A Rod in Seattle, Giambi in Oakland, Damon in KC, possibly Nomar or Pedro in 04.... if not, is that an advantage?

4. If there was a firm salary cap in baseball, would the Yankees still be as good relative to the rest of the league?

1) The only guy on your list that I would have a tough time accepting leaving would be Pettitte. Bernie is getting up there in age. Karsay is coming off Tommy John surgery. We really don't know what Contreas is gonna bring. (Is he a reliever or a starter). Giambi is a bad fit on this team.
(If it was me, and I could find a taker I would trade him and let Nick Johnson play first). Limiting the Yanks to the Sox payroll is easy.

2) getting to the Marlins payroll. They would have to do like alot of other teams. Rebuild with kids and make a run at it. (It worked for the Marlins and Angels, did not work for Cleveland)

3) Can't argue that one. (Pettitte though will be interesting cause he has stated that he would like to pitch closer to home in Texas.) George takes care of his big name players. (Bernie for one). I think the last one that left was Jeff Nelson and yeah although Torre was not a big fan of Nelson he really could have used him in 2002.

4) A firm salary cap in baseball. The Yankees would still be good. It all comes down to making good FO moves.

Also remember one thing. Until the Giambi signing the Yankees always let someone else set the market for free agents and instead going after the next guy. (Mussina instead of Randy Johnson, A-Rod).

Here is a question for you. (And any other Sox fan out there). Would you be willing to sacrifice 3 years, (Most teams it is usually five years but since the Sox have the cash we will make it three) in order to win the World Series. Lose Pedro, Lose Manny, trade Nomar for a lesser shortstop and pitching prospects that turn out to be studs ?

I would bet most of you would take that in a heartbeat. It just seems that the Sox would not accept a rebuilding project like what is happened in Florida or what is going on with the Indians right now.

I know I'm making this a Yankee/Red Sox thing. So here is my thoughts on all of MLB.

If they could install a hard cap I would be happy. The problem though is that there is no way you can redo 25 years of outrageous spending, (And this goes for all the owners) in a swoop. It is something that done right would probably take about 10 years. Maybe we are starting to see it happening already. Teams are being more selective and not offering the 5yrs guaranteed contracts that were the norm. Electing to build from within and then adding missing pieces when they are close to being contenders.

Guys like Pudge, Alfonzo, 5yrs would have been a done deal in past. Not anymore.

Guess we will have to see what the off-season brings

RichardSeymour · 10-28-2003, 12:07 AM

I think the most realistic baseball salary cap is the NBA model.... establish, say, a 90 million dollar salary cap with a 70 million dollar minimum. Teams over the cap pay a 100% lux tax for each dollar over the cap (100 million payroll= 10 million dollar tax, the tax money to be distributed to small market teams and/or players) and CANNOT SIGN FREE AGENTS for any more than the minimum, with one two year 4 million dollar exemption per team, per year. This allows teams with high payrolls to continue to have them if they wish, but penalizes them financially and competitively.

RichardSeymour · 10-28-2003, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shawn306@Oct 27 2003, 06:57 PM
1) The only guy on your list that I would have a tough time accepting leaving would be Pettitte. Bernie is getting up there in age. Karsay is coming off Tommy John surgery. We really don't know what Contreas is gonna bring. (Is he a reliever or a starter). Giambi is a bad fit on this team.
(If it was me, and I could find a taker I would trade him and let Nick Johnson play first). Limiting the Yanks to the Sox payroll is easy.

Disagree. one: I gave you the benefit of the doubt by putting all your worst/biggest contracts there (escept Jeters). Moreover, note how I said WITHOUT ADDING ANY MORE PAYROLL.

So this would leave you needing two SPs, a CF, a RP, and a 1b, and only able to afford minimum salary free agents and/or your farm system.

shawn306 · 10-28-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardSeymour@Oct 28 2003, 01:07 AM
I think the most realistic baseball salary cap is the NBA model.... establish, say, a 90 million dollar salary cap with a 70 million dollar minimum. Teams over the cap pay a 100% lux tax for each dollar over the cap (100 million payroll= 10 million dollar tax, the tax money to be distributed to small market teams and/or players) and CANNOT SIGN FREE AGENTS for any more than the minimum, with one two year 4 million dollar exemption per team, per year. This allows teams with high payrolls to continue to have them if they wish, but penalizes them financially and competitively.

I don't exactly see that hurting teams like the Lakers. How are they able to have Kobe and Shaq on the same team and still be able to go out and sign a Gary Payton and Karl Malone ? I don't know what their contracts are for this year but I would venture a guess and say that they signed minimum deals in order to get their shots at getting a ring.

That is probably what would happen with the Yankees. They would probably go out and sign guys who have already made their money and are now looking for a ring. (If a guy like Craig Biggio or Moises Alou were available they would be perfect fit for the yankees).

It's not a bad setup but once again you are trying to fix something that took 25 years and a couple of players strikes to "break". In reality the players would shut down the game forever before agreeing to that or any hard cap. That is the reality of the situation.

You would almost have to set the ceiling at the yankees payroll right now and then work it down year after year from there. Depending on money coming in the NBA and the NFL raise the cap slightly, baseball would have to do the opposite in lowering the max cap until things were back in order.

mbn007 · 10-31-2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shawn306@Oct 28 2003, 09:18 AM

You would almost have to set the ceiling at the yankees payroll right now and then work it down year after year from there. Depending on money coming in the NBA and the NFL raise the cap slightly, baseball would have to do the opposite in lowering the max cap until things were back in order.

A cap fight would probably shut down the game for 2 years, minmimum.

To implement a cap, there would have to be a phase in, as the Yankees would be way over the limit, and maybe Boston, Mets and Dodgers are also. Philly and others may be close to the 80-90 million mark. So a phase in is a requirement, say over 3-4 years.

We may see something afetr this season in the NHL. Bettman is threatening to shut down the league, which has $0.00 TV money, and is not very popular, compared to baseball, the NFL or the NBA. So baseball may be following those developments as a study for what they should do.

tailgators · 10-31-2003, 01:28 PM

According to a Bud Selig the effects of baseball's so-called luxury tax will kick in in about two years or so.

But what else would you expect him to publically say?

10-27-2003, 09:53 AM	#1
jetman67 Wants a Superbowl, Thats It!!! Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Somewhere Posts: 10,382	The payrol argument is now DEAD!!! The team with a low payrol won the world series over a the most expensive team in baseball.

10-27-2003, 02:11 PM	#2
PFSIKH Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,457	No it ain't. The only reason you were in the position is because of the cash.

10-27-2003, 03:13 PM	#4
RichardSeymour Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,359	he's not completely right but he's not completely wrong. Teams with high payroll don't just do well because they have high payroll, but they DO have a competitive advantage. If Beane had had the money to keep Giambi (ok bad example, heh), Damon, sign FAs, etc, yes it very well might have been a different series. The Boston Red Sox have a significant competitive advantage over the Athletics. The Yankees have a significant competitive advantage over the Red Sox and a HUGE one over the As or Marlins. Look at the Marlins. low payroll but they made ALL the right moves. Signed Pudge, almost had to trade Lowell because of FA but didn't because they thought they could make a run. They probably (certainly) will not be able to resign Pudge, Lowell, and eventually Penny and that Josh Beckett kid without a lot new revenue or those players being willing to take substantially less money to stay in FL. Look at the Yankees. This year they made ALL the wrong moves. Trading their only really great prospect for a 3b who performed poorly. weak lineup in the clutch, no middle relief.... and they game within two games of winning it all. I realistically understand that the current system enormously favors the top teams, of which the Red Sox are one. However as a baseball fan I believe that the current system is ruining the sport on a national level. Any intellectually honest Yankees fans out there? Anyone who disagrees please answer me these questions.... 1. If it's not about payroll, would be comfortable with the Yankees trading many of their large contracts and limiting themselves to the Red Sox payroll? This could be acheived by not replacing Clemens or Wells or Pettitte, trading Bernie Williams, Jason Giambi, Karsay, and Contreras, without spending ANY new money. (most of those contracts are realistically untradable, but lets imagine they could be moved). 2. Same question but with the Marlins payroll? 3. Do the Yankees ever have to let a player leave the team because they can't afford him, ie. A Rod in Seattle, Giambi in Oakland, Damon in KC, possibly Nomar or Pedro in 04.... if not, is that an advantage? 4. If there was a firm salary cap in baseball, would the Yankees still be as good relative to the rest of the league?

10-28-2003, 12:07 AM	#7
RichardSeymour Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,359	I think the most realistic baseball salary cap is the NBA model.... establish, say, a 90 million dollar salary cap with a 70 million dollar minimum. Teams over the cap pay a 100% lux tax for each dollar over the cap (100 million payroll= 10 million dollar tax, the tax money to be distributed to small market teams and/or players) and CANNOT SIGN FREE AGENTS for any more than the minimum, with one two year 4 million dollar exemption per team, per year. This allows teams with high payrolls to continue to have them if they wish, but penalizes them financially and competitively.

10-31-2003, 01:28 PM	#11
tailgators Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Kingston, NY Posts: 3,975	According to a Bud Selig the effects of baseball's so-called luxury tax will kick in in about two years or so. But what else would you expect him to publically say?