Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > I'm a socialist

I'm a socialist
Thread Tools
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 02:09 PM
 
...when it comes to league sports, at least.

To me, salary caps are a necessary thing in today's league sports. With the proliferation of sports teams in the modern world, you need some way to ensure that each team has a more-or-less level playing field when it comes time to compete.

Take, for example, Major League Baseball, which does not have a salary cap. Once again my Jays are on the outside looking in, as teams with far greater payrolls "buy up" available talent.

In these type of leagues, teams that do not have large payrolls can possibly do damage; but it usually comes with a plethora of young, unproven yet talented players, which are gained through years and years of, well, sucking. And then once those players emerge on the big stage, they often have to be traded away as they're simply offered more money by teams that can afford to do so.

Of course, then you have the issue of "hard caps" vs. "soft caps"... such as the NHL or NFL, which have maximum and minimum salary guidelines, whereas the NBA (and to a lesser extent the MLB) has a "soft cap" which owners will be penalized for breaking. (For example, at least the last two NBA champions have both been paying "luxury tax" because they were above the cap.)

Of course... having a salary cap places more of an emphasis on management IMO. Smart decisions, evaluation of talent and "fit," and business acumen are encouraged.

On the other hand... is there something good about having a few rich teams that many people love to follow, and the rest love to hate? Take many of the great sports rivalries of the past - Lakers-Celtics comes to mind - and often they're the result of competition between the "richest" teams in that league. Does having a salary cap allow more "random" teams to end up winning, and is this a good or bad thing?

Anyways... my rant and thoguhts of the day (get a blog, yadda yadda). Salary caps in sports. Wooo!

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 02:14 PM
 
Why do they need to have an even playing field in that regard?

Isn't a franchise's ability to raise money and pay their players more just another measure of their fitness as a business? Rather than crippling them and bringing them down to the level of the underperforming franchises why not let the other franchises actually work to be just as successful?

I fail to see how this in any way improves the game.
     
Dakar V
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 02:15 PM
 
I think it's an argument that the size of the city shouldn't dictate the chance of the team winning.
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Why do they need to have an even playing field in that regard?

Isn't a franchise's ability to raise money and pay their players more just another measure of their fitness as a business? Rather than crippling them and bringing them down to the level of the underperforming franchises why not let the other franchises actually work to be just as successful?

I fail to see how this in any way improves the game.
Parity creates interest in the league, and most teams can't compete with the money a team in NY can make. If the only competitive teams were NY, Boston, Chicago and LA, fans in the other cities would lose interest, and you wouldn't really have a league after that.

Regardless, the league as a whole is the business, not really individual teams. They are more or less subsidiaries of the league - you can't start your own MLB team and compete with them (you can buy one, but they have to approve of you).

As a counter argument, the Tampa Bay Rays made the World Series last year. Their whole team combined made less than ARod + Jeter (or something pretty close).
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
Parity creates interest in the league, and most teams can't compete with the money a team in NY can make. If the only competitive teams were NY, Boston, Chicago and LA, fans in the other cities would lose interest, and you wouldn't really have a league after that.

Regardless, the league as a whole is the business, not really individual teams. They are more or less subsidiaries of the league - you can't start your own MLB team and compete with them (you can buy one, but they have to approve of you).

As a counter argument, the Tampa Bay Rays made the World Series last year. Their whole team combined made less than ARod + Jeter (or something pretty close).
Why can't teams in other cities compete? Are the incompetent? Do the people in those cities just not care as much about their teams? Maybe they just need to do a better job of marketing themselves and provided a good value for their ticket prices.

And the individual teams are businesses. They're franchises of the MLB, just like any individual McDonalds restaurant.
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Why can't teams in other cities compete? Are the incompetent? Do the people in those cities just not care as much about their teams? Maybe they just need to do a better job of marketing themselves and provided a good value for their ticket prices.
The Yankees have 10 times the local population of the Rays. Imagine what that does to demand.
     
Dakar V
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Why can't teams in other cities compete? Are the incompetent? Do the people in those cities just not care as much about their teams?
Are you being difficult on purpose? If one city has twice the population of the other, than they have twice the demand. That's a huge disadvantage for the smaller city team.

How is it that LA and NY manage to support two major league teams in several sports? Its not because their marketing is so good.
( Last edited by Dakar V; Aug 3, 2009 at 03:03 PM. )
     
ShortcutToMoncton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Why do they need to have an even playing field in that regard?

Isn't a franchise's ability to raise money and pay their players more just another measure of their fitness as a business? Rather than crippling them and bringing them down to the level of the underperforming franchises why not let the other franchises actually work to be just as successful?
Well this is an interesting question: how is a team that has poorer owners, a poorer fanbase, or a poorer economic climate "underperforming"?

Secondly, why can't franchises under a salary cap be just as successful by working on other aspects of the game, such as player development, scouting, management, fostering a team environment that league players wish to enter, etc. etc?

I fail to see how this in any way improves the game.
...you don't see any advantage to spreading the highest-paid talent throughout an entire league, rather than allowing the richest teams to buy them up and significantly increase the chances of these richest teams winning?

You don't see any advantage to allowing smaller-market teams to compete on a reasonable basis?

You don't see any advantage to promoting a focus on management and coaching and "team environment" as I mentioned above?

Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
As a counter argument, the Tampa Bay Rays made the World Series last year. Their whole team combined made less than ARod + Jeter (or something pretty close).
This sound about right?
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
In these type of leagues, teams that do not have large payrolls can possibly do damage; but it usually comes with a plethora of young, unproven yet talented players, which are gained through years and years of, well, sucking. And then once those players emerge on the big stage, they often have to be traded away as they're simply offered more money by teams that can afford to do so.
greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 03:01 PM
 
I support this only as long as you support your own pay being capped at a fraction of what it naturally should be given your skill.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar V View Post
Are you being difficult on purpose? If one city has twice the population of the other, than they have twice the demand. That's a huge disadvantage for the smaller city team.

How is it that LA and NY manage to support two major league teams in several sports? Its not because they're marketing is so good.
So maybe they should have more teams. It makes sense for the distribution of teams to follow the distribution of (potential) fans. If New York can support two major league baseball teams with high salaries, but Tampa can only support one with lower salaries, then maybe New York should have a third team to split the local fan base further and equalize the fan to team ratio in the area.

Also, try taking a look at the price of Yankees tickets some time. It's insane. The cost of maintaining such high salaries is seriously undermining their bottom line because a lot of people simply can't afford to go to Yankees games. Conversely, here in DC it's insanely cheap to get Nationals tickets. I recently went to a game at Nationals Park and sat in seats right behind home plate, maybe 7 or 8 rows up. Awesome seats. The face value of the tickets was about $175 (fortunately I got them for free...) even for some of the best seats in the house, and each ticket came with a $35 credit that could be spent at any vendor in the stadium.

Sure you may want to have an awesome, competitive sports team in your region, but if there isn't the fan base to support it then it just doesn't make sense.
     
Ghoser777
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 03:02 PM
 
I'm betting this thread was started because of today's episode of ESPN First Take.
     
Ghoser777
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 03:04 PM
 
Sure you may want to have an awesome, competitive sports team in your region, but if there isn't the fan base to support it then it just doesn't make sense.
The age old chicken-and-the-egg issue. Does the competitive sports team bring the fans, or do the fanse bring the competitive sports team.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Ghoser777 View Post
The age old chicken-and-the-egg issue. Does the competitive sports team bring the fans, or do the fanse bring the competitive sports team.
Not really. I don't think anyone could reasonable argue that Helena, Montana or Juneau, Alaska could muster the fan base to support an MLB franchise no matter how competitive the team was.
     
Dakar V
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
So maybe they should have more teams. It makes sense for the distribution of teams to follow the distribution of (potential) fans. If New York can support two major league baseball teams with high salaries, but Tampa can only support one with lower salaries, then maybe New York should have a third team to split the local fan base further and equalize the fan to team ratio in the area.
I'm not arguing they shouldn't have multiple teams, I'm making a point about their raw economic power.

Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Also, try taking a look at the price of Yankees tickets some time. It's insane. The cost of maintaining such high salaries is seriously undermining their bottom line because a lot of people simply can't afford to go to Yankees games. Conversely, here in DC it's insanely cheap to get Nationals tickets. I recently went to a game at Nationals Park and sat in seats right behind home plate, maybe 7 or 8 rows up. Awesome seats. The face value of the tickets was about $175 (fortunately I got them for free...) even for some of the best seats in the house, and each ticket came with a $35 credit that could be spent at any vendor in the stadium.

Sure you may want to have an awesome, competitive sports team in your region, but if there isn't the fan base to support it then it just doesn't make sense.
Yeah, there's no excuse for putting a NBA team in Memphis, for example, which is why I'm more of a fan of the NBA soft cap, than a hard and fast one (though the soft cap does have some unforeseen consequences I don't care for).



Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Not really. I don't think anyone could reasonable argue that Helena, Montana or Juneau, Alaska could muster the fan base to support an MLB franchise no matter how competitive the team was.
Conversely Donald Serling of the LA Clippers has made a mint off a team that has made the playoffs twice in the past twenty-odd years.
     
ShortcutToMoncton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I support this only as long as you support your own pay being capped at a fraction of what it naturally should be given your skill.
How do you figure? Players don't make less; they make the same, just with more teams. Each team can't individually afford to pay for all these expensive players, so those players make the same but with different teams. Talent is "spread around."

In addition, salary caps are generally tied to revenue in some way. (For example, the NBA's cap is expected to drop next year because of lowered revenues.)

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 View Post
I'm betting this thread was started because of today's episode of ESPN First Take.
Nope. Don't watch it. It's been a pet interest of mine for years (I'm sure there are older threads on here as well).

Originally Posted by nonhuman
Not really. I don't think anyone could reasonable argue that Helena, Montana or Juneau, Alaska could muster the fan base to support an MLB franchise no matter how competitive the team was.
But many teams which do support a winning franchise do not support a losing franchise.

For the record, I think a competitive team brings the fans, and not the other way around. There are great examples of faithful fanbases which support perennial losers, but I can't think of any successfull franchises which had terrible fan support. But there are lots of teams with terrible fan support which became competitive and then got great fan support... but then became uncompetitive and then lost the fans again.

Originally Posted by nonhuman
Also, try taking a look at the price of Yankees tickets some time. It's insane. The cost of maintaining such high salaries is seriously undermining their bottom line because a lot of people simply can't afford to go to Yankees games. Conversely, here in DC it's insanely cheap to get Nationals tickets. I recently went to a game at Nationals Park and sat in seats right behind home plate, maybe 7 or 8 rows up. Awesome seats. The face value of the tickets was about $175 (fortunately I got them for free...) even for some of the best seats in the house, and each ticket came with a $35 credit that could be spent at any vendor in the stadium.
1. The Yankees are one of the greatest teams in baseball (every year), and the Nats are a terrible team.

2. There are a lot more rich people in NYC than there are in Washington?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 04:23 PM
 
Having a high payroll doesn't guarantee a winning team, especially when 1/3 of that payroll (and a sig) is on the DL.

I think that most major sports leagues already buy into the idea of "socialism", because they draft nearly all their new players, and the order of the draft is roughly based on how poor the team did in the last season. Built into that is the assumption that leagues want all their teams to win eventually, and that they should give the teams that are not doing so well "first dibs" into the talent pool.

But look at what happens in baseball, where there is a draft but no (practical) salary cap? Good young players come up through their small-market team's farm system, fans get to see those players develop through their arbitration years, then the year before they become a Free Agent the team trades them to a large-market contender near the trade deadline because they know they can't afford their salary demands in free agency. These fans get to watch that star play out his best years on another team.

On the field of play, sports leagues go out of their way to make sure the rules are fair for both sides. Why not extend that to how the teams are constructed?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 04:59 PM
 
I still stick to the pure capitalistic view on sports. Players and owners negotiate the best deal the profits both. If the fans truly didn't support this they wouldn't watch.
     
kylef
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 05:27 PM
 
You're not allowed to have more posts than me in socialism! And every player then must have the ball for the same number of seconds!

Or else..
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 05:53 PM
 
In a truly free market sports league there wouldn't be a draft either. The best teams would just sign the best young players. Their wouldn't be any sort of league maximums or minimums either. So it would ultimately probably end up hurting most players because all of the owners would collude and screw everyone.

We need "socialist" rules or their would only be 5 or 6 teams in each league. New York and LA would have the Harlem Globetrotters and every other city would have the Washington Generals. The fanbase would disappear in a manner of a few years.

All that said, I do think the way salary caps are implemented are a bit screwed up. (speaking mostly of the NHL here) They need to be way "softer". The problem in the past was that certain teams simply could not afford to keep star players around. So teams like Edmonton would end up as farm teams for the big guns in the league. They would draft good young guys and as soon as their initial contracts were up they would leave and go on to a big market team that could afford to pay them 10 million+ a year.

Now they have a cap and a league max... but the max is too high and the cap is too low. They also need rules that stop teams from screwing the system. Signing a 30 year old player to a front loaded 12 year contract in order to minimize the cap hit needs to go. There should be "cap" discounts for teams signing players that they developed. And the ceiling of the cap should be softer. Teams should be able to go over it if they want, and only have to pay a penalty. Just make the financial penalty rather harsh. Or dock them draft picks or something.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 08:16 PM
 
I say we give every player a ball peen hammer too.
     
ShortcutToMoncton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2009, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
I still stick to the pure capitalistic view on sports. Players and owners negotiate the best deal the profits both. If the fans truly didn't support this they wouldn't watch.
Isn't this how it went? Baseball's the only major league sport in America without a viable cap system at this point. All the others seemed to figure out that having 3-4 successful rich teams meant that fans outside those markets didn't watch.....

Originally Posted by Dork.
Having a high payroll doesn't guarantee a winning team, especially when 1/3 of that payroll (and a sig) is on the DL.
Hahaha, well some things you can't account for... but there's no question at all that higher payrolls means a far higher correlation with success in pro sports. I mean, people point to the Yankees as "proof" that high payrolls don't work... but the Yankees have been one of the most (if not the most) successful teams in baseball for, what, well over a decade now right?

Of course, the beauty about salary caps that I see is that they don't seem to eliminate franchise teams, or eliminate absolutely horrendous teams. Take the NFL for example: in the past 10 years you've had the record dominance of the Patriots and the Colts, and the utter haplessness of the Lions - and all with every team in the league spending between 95 and 110 million (or whatever it is). Only the importance of great management, coaching, smart decisions and vision can fully explain that sort of disparity. (I mean, other than the obvious luck factor.)

Same thing with the NHL: you've got the inexplicably dominant Red Wings, who seem to repeatedly make brilliant draft picks out of seemingly nothing. You also have the pitiful Leafs, who've been raped by incompetent leadership.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 02:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
...when it comes to league sports, at least.
So you're a leauge sports player? If so, you can cap your own salary all you want. Everyone else can laugh and get paid what they're worth.

Otherwise, why is it people that aren't members of a certain profession feel this burning need to declare what type of payment they think others who ARE in that profession deserve? What is up with that? It's weird.

Clearly, sports players should only make their money touring.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 03:17 AM
 
I agree with you Moncton for all of the reasons you stated. I don't agree with all of the free market Republicany arguments here. Baseball is a game where the rules and conditions are micromanaged by the MLB corp not just to maximize profits, but to retain interest in the game, integrity of players, owners, teams, etc. It is a business, but one with strict regulations designed to benefit the sport as a whole (and in turn, quite potentially, profits). It needs to be treated and considered a little differently than a bunch of private businesses competing against each other.

Thinking that the free market is the answer to everything is like prescribing chicken soup for every sickness.
( Last edited by besson3c; Aug 4, 2009 at 03:32 AM. )
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 05:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Thinking that the free market is the answer to everything is like prescribing chicken soup for every sickness.
Chicken soup is the best reason to be sick!
     
ShortcutToMoncton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
So you're a leauge sports player? If so, you can cap your own salary all you want. Everyone else can laugh and get paid what they're worth.
Do you either not understand, or have not stopped to think about, the importance of tying a league-wide cap to league revenue?

You clearly haven't thought about the fact that current pro sports leagues caps haven't seemed to significantly deflate individual salaries, that's for sure.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Dakar V
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 09:07 AM
 
God, knows in the NBA there's almost no player that's considered underpaid, and that's with all the cap restrictions.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 09:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by kylef View Post
And every player then must have the ball for the same number of seconds!

Or else..
I like this idea. Let Matt Light play QB once in a while.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ShortcutToMoncton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar V View Post
God, knows in the NBA there's almost no player that's considered underpaid, and that's with all the cap restrictions.
Now somebody tell that to Colangelo
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Do you either not understand, or have not stopped to think about, the importance of tying a league-wide cap to league revenue?

You clearly haven't thought about the fact that current pro sports leagues caps haven't seemed to significantly deflate individual salaries, that's for sure.
Way to miss a point.

I take it you're not a leauge player?

WHY do you feel some burning need to expend time worried about someone else's salary in a profession you're not even in? It's busybody bullshit, and only other busybodies give a crap.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 01:15 PM
 
Most of these rules do more to help the players then the ownership.

Without a set of strictly enforced rules, the owners would collude again and all of the players would get screwed.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
ShortcutToMoncton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Way to miss a point.

I take it you're not a leauge player?

WHY do you feel some burning need to expend time worried about someone else's salary in a profession you're not even in? It's busybody bullshit, and only other busybodies give a crap.
Oh... you mean... one of the professions that depends on my participation in order to survive? The athletes that get paid only if I watch their games on TV and in person and buy their merchandise?

Are you really going to make that argument? Really? That sports fans shouldn't be talking about the economic side of their game? That since someone isn't a "leauge [sic] player" they can't talk about the best economic model for a sport?

What a stupid, stupid concept.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 02:54 PM
 
Baseball is the only major sport in America that hasn't incorporated a salary cap yet, right? Is it any coincidence that it doesn't have quite as big of a following in Middle America?

The 3 biggest cities in the U.S.
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago


LA Dodgers - 1st in their division, 1st in National League
Chicago Cubs - 1st in their division, 5th in National League
New York Mets - 4th in their division, 11th in National League (the clear exception)

New York Yankees - 1st in their division, 1st in American League
LA Angels - 1st in their division, 2nd in American League
Boston Red Sox - 2nd in their division, 3rd in American League

Another team of note:
Philadelphia (5th largest U.S. city) - 1st in their division, 2nd in National League

If a sports team performs on a mediocre level for years, it doesn't matter how long it's been in a city...it's going to lose popularity. Baseball is a game that has fallen far behind the NFL and NBA in popularity, except in the major cities. Without a salary cap, it will continue to lose popularity. While it's good for the "tradition" of baseball for these ancient franchises to do well, it's bad for the sport as a whole.

Watching the Yankees, Red Sox (even though I love 'em), and the rest of the big-city teams buy up the biggest talents in free agency every year starts getting a little old.

And yes, teams like the Rays come along every now and then, but have you ever seen how many of their fans in their own stadium wear Yankees or Sox hats when those teams come to down? It's like a game played at a neutral location.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Oh... you mean... one of the professions that depends on my participation in order to survive? The athletes that get paid only if I watch their games on TV and in person and buy their merchandise?
Talk about a dumb "argument". That's exactly it genius, they're getting paid based on fans watching the games on TV, in person, and buying their merchandise. In other words- EXACTLY what the market for the profession will bear. Don't like it? Don't watch, don't go to games, don't buy merchandise.

Or in your case, sit in your mother's basement and bitch and whine about other people's salaries. Your not a 'socialist' when it comes to league sports, you're a busybody when it comes to someone else's profession you have nothing to do with. It's kind of a silly waste of time and energy if you ask me, but hey, have at it. I'm sure anyone in baseball gives a good crap.

That since someone isn't a "leauge [sic] player" they can't talk about the best economic model for a sport?
Again, who are you to decide what's "the best economic model" for something you're not a part of, have no stake in, an have no real inside knowledge of?

There's just this weird pasttime I notice with a lot of people- people who aren't musicians or recording artists who think they know what the best economic model for that industry is. People who aren't actors or TV show runners who think they know what the best economic model for that industry is. People who don't play sports, own a team, have anything to do with the profession other than being a customer who MAKES THE SALARIES YOU WHINE ABOUT POSSIBLE in the first place thinking you know better for some industry than the industry players themselves. Like I said, it's weird.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 03:34 PM
 
No one's allowed to have an opinion about the business side of a product (in this case, a sporting league) that they enjoy? Really? What are we all doing on an Apple discussion forum, then?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ShortcutToMoncton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Talk about a dumb "argument". That's exactly it genius, they're getting paid based on fans watching the games on TV, in person, and buying their merchandise. In other words- EXACTLY what the market for the profession will bear. Don't like it? Don't watch, don't go to games, don't buy merchandise.

Or in your case, sit in your mother's basement and bitch and whine about other people's salaries. Your not a 'socialist' when it comes to league sports, you're a busybody when it comes to someone else's profession you have nothing to do with. It's kind of a silly waste of time and energy if you ask me, but hey, have at it. I'm sure anyone in baseball gives a good crap.


Again, who are you to decide what's "the best economic model" for something you're not a part of, have no stake in, an have no real inside knowledge of?

There's just this weird pasttime I notice with a lot of people- people who aren't musicians or recording artists who think they know what the best economic model for that industry is. People who aren't actors or TV show runners who think they know what the best economic model for that industry is. People who don't play sports, own a team, have anything to do with the profession other than being a customer who MAKES THE SALARIES YOU WHINE ABOUT POSSIBLE in the first place thinking you know better for some industry than the industry players themselves. Like I said, it's weird.
You make...absolutely no sense.

By your logic, athletes should be the people developing the economic model for their sport. You know, the people who... usually have no formal business education or experience in running a business.

But hey... since you're so passionate about your position: please name me some of the top league executives in pro sports who were once professional athletes themselves. You know, the ones who didn't decide to take their executive position because they saw a business opportunity or were fans of the game.

(Good luck with that...)

Other than that:
Talk about a dumb "argument". That's exactly it genius, they're getting paid based on fans watching the games on TV, in person, and buying their merchandise. In other words- EXACTLY what the market for the profession will bear. Don't like it? Don't watch, don't go to games, don't buy merchandise.
What are you even talking about? Still haven't thought about how salary caps are tied to revenue?

Whispered hint: It's still what "the market will bear"

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
If a sports team performs on a mediocre level for years, it doesn't matter how long it's been in a city...it's going to lose popularity. Baseball is a game that has fallen far behind the NFL and NBA in popularity, except in the major cities. Without a salary cap, it will continue to lose popularity. While it's good for the "tradition" of baseball for these ancient franchises to do well, it's bad for the sport as a whole.
Look at the Toronto Blue Jays - in the later-80s and for the first part of the 90s, the Jays were a immensely popular team.

For the past decade now, they've been stuck in a division with two of the biggest-spending teams in baseball - the Red Sox and Yankees. The Jays have a 70-85 million dollar payroll, and routinely have to face teams that have two and a half times their salary costs.

Fan support has dropped off considerably. And why not? Where's the drama, when everyone knows it's going to end up a battle between the Yanks and the Red Sox? Hell, the real drama is picking between either of those to lose every year....

I think you're right: it might be great for some teams (the traditional, big-market ones), but it's bad for the sport as a whole.

(And thus, you're back to "what the market will bear for the league as opposed to a team)

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2009, 12:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You make...absolutely no sense.
Look who's talking.

By your logic, athletes should be the people developing the economic model for their sport. You know, the people who... usually have no formal business education or experience in running a business.
Logic isn't your strong point. Athletes play the sport, not run the business. You're the one arguing about the best way to run a business you have no experience running. And those players without a formal business education seem to do pretty well at negotiating a fair share of the income generated by the sport, or else you'd have nothing to get worked up about.

But hey... since you're so passionate about your position: please name me some of the top league executives in pro sports who were once professional athletes themselves.
What's that go to do with anything? Why aren't you a top sports executive? Oh wait, could it be because you know jack crap about running the business or what business model works best, vs. someone who actually does run a sports team? If you know so much, why not start your own league and run it however you want? Put your own money where your mouth is. Surely it's got to be as easy as you say it is, because clearly you know more than those actually doing it. So have at it. Or...

Continue to yap on about it from the safety of your mom's basement.
     
ShortcutToMoncton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2009, 12:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Look who's talking.
Oh snap.... you're slammin it tonight, Donnie!

Thanks for your lackluster contribution to this thread, however. I'm sure all involved will take your advice to heart: "if you don't actually do a certain topic, then you can't have a legitimate opinion on how it should be done." We'll be sure to remember your sage advice the next time you criticize, say, Presidential decisions.

*shakes head*

Thanks for your inability to spell "league," though. And your failure to understand why tying salary caps to league revenues will mean that athletes still get paid the same.

You're out of your element, Donnie. Good night.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2009, 01:57 AM
 
I feel dirty.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:25 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,