Agree or disagree!! "Put an end to fans sense entitlement"

[Knucksie]

S
But unfortunately the data shows that more people watch when teams like the Yankees or Dodgers are absolutely loaded

Teams from the country's two largest cities. Who would've ever guessed? The data probably shows Chicago in 3rd too!

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

So, what are you going to do next? Are you going to tell the players they can't get private endorsements? That they can't choose where they want to play based on State income tax situations? That gray and dreary Detroit must be considered in the players mind as nice as San Diego?

If you have a cap then all those things will come into play, especially the non-baseball income, to drive the best players to the markets that can provide those extra incentives that can't be regulated.

Want to make movies Shaq? Come to LA. Hey, LeBron you want to max your endorsement deals come to LA or come to NY.

Hey Tom Brady you like a good steak? Come to Kansas City. Doesn't have quite the same effect and never will.

The stated intent of a salary cap (parity) has never been the goal. It has always been an effort to guarantee costs and insure profits.

I am of the opinion that a meritocracy is the best way to go. If you run your business well then you should reap those rewards. If you do it poorly then you should reap those rewards.

But don't buy a small market club at a small market price then try to change the rules to insure you get equal profits. You knew in advance what you were buying.

We already figured that baseball more or less has good parity from the Harvard study, more or less. BeanieAntics showed this.

At your point, I would argue the Knicks are a reason why endorsements don't matter as much as team building in recruitment, as they continually fail in free agency. People also haven't chosen to come to the Giants, similarly. If anything it's more of a factor in hockey since players like Canada and the original six, and they have great parity. No need for restrictions on players. We already have goodish parity in baseball, more or less.

In honesty, I'm more in favor of a salary minimum with a cap that all but the team with the most money will not ever reach (like 220 million), increasing by 5 million each year, with a high % salary minimum, with the purpose of increasing salaries for mediocre players. Basically similar to the NBA but twice the maximum to where the cap is ineffective. But owners would not agree to it because the bad owners might have to pay 100 million more, so it doesn't matter what I support.

As far as my last post, do you support abolishing the draft? That's what the article was arguing for, on the basis that it is unfair to players by artificially lowering income.

Dude wants to make every draftable player be able to negotiate as free agents to give players higher salaries, similar to Latin America but without caps. My thing is that if we followed the author's intent, it would be worse for parity than our current system unless there was a cap on draftable player spending, which would not necessarily be better and would allow for a bunch of shady business like in Latin America. I would rather just increase the minimum payments and the maximum spending amount by a lot for drafting players to help out the college guys.

[cajunrevenge]

Baseball has parity because for the longest time the biggest markets were also the worst run teams and because the playoffs are largely a crapshoot.

[BeanieAntics]

Teams from the country's two largest cities. Who would've ever guessed? The data probably shows Chicago in 3rd too!

Its true across markets. Golden State and Cleveland being dominant in the NBA is also good for ratings. The thing that is good for the ratings is the superteam, not the market.

[Horsehide Harry]

We already figured that baseball more or less has good parity from the Harvard study, more or less. BeanieAntics showed this.

At your point, I would argue the Knicks are a reason why endorsements don't matter as much as team building in recruitment, as they continually fail in free agency. People also haven't chosen to come to the Giants, similarly. If anything it's more of a factor in hockey since players like Canada and the original six, and they have great parity. No need for restrictions on players. We already have goodish parity in baseball, more or less.

In honesty, I'm more in favor of a salary minimum with a cap that all but the team with the most money will not ever reach (like 220 million), increasing by 5 million each year, with a high % salary minimum, with the purpose of increasing salaries for mediocre players. Basically similar to the NBA but twice the maximum to where the cap is ineffective. But owners would not agree to it because the bad owners might have to pay 100 million more, so it doesn't matter what I support.

As far as my last post, do you support abolishing the draft? That's what the article was arguing for, on the basis that it is unfair to players by artificially lowering income.

Dude wants to make every draftable player be able to negotiate as free agents to give players higher salaries, similar to Latin America but without caps. My thing is that if we followed the author's intent, it would be worse for parity than our current system unless there was a cap on draftable player spending, which would not necessarily be better and would allow for a bunch of shady business like in Latin America. I would rather just increase the minimum payments and the maximum spending amount by a lot for drafting players to help out the college guys.

I would have to think through abolishing the draft but on the surface there is some attraction, especially if you limit the number of developmental teams available to teams say: AAA, AA, high A, low A, Rookie 1, Rookie 2 with no international academies which would force teams to carry international guys a long time or cut them loose quickly which would allow other teams a second opportunity and the player a second signing opportunity. A team could build internally by committing to a young talent acquisition strategy. I think you would also have to do away with the 6 year ML team control rule - essentially when a ML team brings a player up he's a FA after the first year unless he signs a long term deal which would increase potential movement between teams and disincentivize teams stacking talent in the minors. Also cut the 40 man to 30 man which would also help keep teams from stashing players.

I think you would have an immediate outcry that the large market teams would monopolize talent. But I doubt that would happen any more than happens now (who signed the top Cubans, the top Asians over the last 30 years most of the time?). I think this structure would likely hurt teams who have the ability to sign a lot of players to long term deals, limiting their flexibility.

I think small market teams could sell the idea of opportunity and compete in many ways monetarily by cutting the ML payroll (essentially treat the ML cost and minor league cost as all part of a whole).

IDK, have to think about it. But it will never happen...too radical.

[Carp]

So, what are you going to do next? Are you going to tell the players they can't get private endorsements? That they can't choose where they want to play based on State income tax situations? That gray and dreary Detroit must be considered in the players mind as nice as San Diego?

If you have a cap then all those things will come into play, especially the non-baseball income, to drive the best players to the markets that can provide those extra incentives that can't be regulated.

Want to make movies Shaq? Come to LA. Hey, LeBron you want to max your endorsement deals come to LA or come to NY.

Hey Tom Brady you like a good steak? Come to Kansas City. Doesn't have quite the same effect and never will.

The stated intent of a salary cap (parity) has never been the goal. It has always been an effort to guarantee costs and insure profits.

I am of the opinion that a meritocracy is the best way to go. If you run your business well then you should reap those rewards. If you do it poorly then you should reap those rewards.

But don't buy a small market club at a small market price then try to change the rules to insure you get equal profits. You knew in advance what you were buying.

Considering baseball is right up there with Hockey in terms of marketable players (or the lack of) I'd say most of that isn't relevant. NBA has a stranglehold on endorsement and marketability, especially in shoe/clothing deals.

[Knucksie]

Its true across markets. Golden State and Cleveland being dominant in the NBA is also good for ratings. The thing that is good for the ratings is the superteam, not the market.

Everybody loves a winner!

[Horsehide Harry]

Considering baseball is right up there with Hockey in terms of marketable players (or the lack of) I'd say most of that isn't relevant. NBA has a stranglehold on endorsement and marketability, especially in shoe/clothing deals.

It isn't relevant because it hasn't had to be. I will give you a scenario: There's a hard cap in baseball. The Yankees want a player but can't quite make his number AND fit him in under the cap. They go to the local TV station (or radio, or whatever) and suggest that if X business is willing to sign new player to a $5M endorsement deal then the Yankees will commit to a $6M marketing campaign with said business.

Yankees sign player and introduce players agent with business with player signing endorsement deal and Yankees market their team with money they would have used to market the team anyway.

The difference between the Yankees there and, say, KC is that NY has an almost infinite number of business with which to partner for that type of thing whereas KC doesn't.

[Carp]

It isn't relevant because it hasn't had to be. I will give you a scenario: There's a hard cap in baseball. The Yankees want a player but can't quite make his number AND fit him in under the cap. They go to the local TV station (or radio, or whatever) and suggest that if X business is willing to sign new player to a $5M endorsement deal then the Yankees will commit to a $6M marketing campaign with said business.

Yankees sign player and introduce players agent with business with player signing endorsement deal and Yankees market their team with money they would have used to market the team anyway.

The difference between the Yankees there and, say, KC is that NY has an almost infinite number of business with which to partner for that type of thing whereas KC doesn't.

That's possible but extremely unlikely. Those are 2 completely unrelated markets. This isn't 1920 with ball clubs making deals with Broadway directors to help facilitate a trade or signing. Teams are businesses and are operated as such.

A cap won't change much. Players have the same incentive now to go to LA or NY or whatever other big market. Yet big name players continuously sign with small market teams quite frequently. Introducing a cap won't change that. Baseball already has a soft cap as it is. So these deals would have already been made if that were true. You don't think the Yankees want to be under the luxury tax? Why didn't they simply do this very deal with Chapman this past off-season?

[Nerfherders]

It would be interesting to see why Harvard thought that there was so much parity in baseball. Sure, an up-and-comer can get in and do well in the playoffs, but more often than not it's the teams with the highest payrolls. I wonder if they were using records as percentages, because that would lead you to believe there is parity in baseball when there might not be. For example, if 90 wins gets you in the playoffs and you win 80 every year, that is a big margin to make up, but not by percentage. In football that is only the difference of 1 game.

[Horsehide Harry]

That's possible but extremely unlikely. Those are 2 completely unrelated markets. This isn't 1920 with ball clubs making deals with Broadway directors to help facilitate a trade or signing. Teams are businesses and are operated as such.

A cap won't change much. Players have the same incentive now to go to LA or NY or whatever other big market. Yet big name players continuously sign with small market teams quite frequently. Introducing a cap won't change that. Baseball already has a soft cap as it is. So these deals would have already been made if that were true. You don't think the Yankees want to be under the luxury tax? Why didn't they simply do this very deal with Chapman this past off-season?

I'm not against the way it is now. I've just been saying that the idea that a salary cap will magically provide parity around the league isn't accurate. That's not what a salary cap really is. A salary cap is designed to limit the growth of cost, provide cost certainty and insure profits even for those franchises that are badly run as businesses. A salary cap isn't about competitive balance.

[Southcack77]

It would be interesting to see why Harvard thought that there was so much parity in baseball. Sure, an up-and-comer can get in and do well in the playoffs, but more often than not it's the teams with the highest payrolls. I wonder if they were using records as percentages, because that would lead you to believe there is parity in baseball when there might not be. For example, if 90 wins gets you in the playoffs and you win 80 every year, that is a big margin to make up, but not by percentage. In football that is only the difference of 1 game.

According to the article, the study used preseason championship odds as their parity barometer.