careful mud....some people (SLOOPY) are a little too sensitive about posting pictures of their team and how much they do or dont suck.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter BuckeyeNation27
- Start date
zincfinger
Gert Frobe-approved
Sloopy45 said:
I was simplifying a little bit, but I didn't remember the final standings as having been consistently that bad. Blocking out the bad memories, maybe.
Upvote
0
@ JC
Sloopy45
Pimp Minister Sinister
BuckStocksHere: "It would be nice to know that instead of trying to compete with a 160million(pure guess?) payroll versus our 25 mil., we could maybe have a hard cap around 70 or so."
Actually, the exact total is $191 million. The main problem with baseball is that there's no revenue sharing. Steinbrenner makes $250 million off the YES Network alone, and that's not counting tickets, shirts, etc.
And even if the Players did agree to it, a cap would never work without revenue sharing. You can't force the Milwaukee Brewers and Kansas City Royals to spend $70 million on payroll when they're not making that much.
Nation: "careful mud....some people (SLOOPY) are a little too sensitive about posting pictures of their team and how much they do or dont suck."
Are you a child? How old are you?? At least come up with something creative or insulting before you post this crap. Otherwise, we have 100 Nation posts crying, "Sloopy, Sloopy, Sloopy!!" If you could be a little more creative, maybe then you'd have a little more T-Shirt revenue coming in.
zinc: "I was simplifying a little bit, but I didn't remember the final standings as having been consistently that bad. Blocking out the bad memories, maybe."
Yep. The Yanks were very bad in those days. From 1989 to 1992, the Yanks were 288-359 (.445).
Actually, the exact total is $191 million. The main problem with baseball is that there's no revenue sharing. Steinbrenner makes $250 million off the YES Network alone, and that's not counting tickets, shirts, etc.
And even if the Players did agree to it, a cap would never work without revenue sharing. You can't force the Milwaukee Brewers and Kansas City Royals to spend $70 million on payroll when they're not making that much.
Nation: "careful mud....some people (SLOOPY) are a little too sensitive about posting pictures of their team and how much they do or dont suck."
Are you a child? How old are you?? At least come up with something creative or insulting before you post this crap. Otherwise, we have 100 Nation posts crying, "Sloopy, Sloopy, Sloopy!!" If you could be a little more creative, maybe then you'd have a little more T-Shirt revenue coming in.
zinc: "I was simplifying a little bit, but I didn't remember the final standings as having been consistently that bad. Blocking out the bad memories, maybe."
Yep. The Yanks were very bad in those days. From 1989 to 1992, the Yanks were 288-359 (.445).
Upvote
0
zincfinger
Gert Frobe-approved
Mudvayne said:
Well, I guess Derek better watch his ass then.
Upvote
0
BuckStocksHere
Semper Fi!
Actually, the exact total is $191 million. The main problem with baseball is that there's no revenue sharing. Steinbrenner makes $250 million off the YES Network alone, and that's not counting tickets, shirts, etc.
And even if the Players did agree to it, a cap would never work without revenue sharing. You can't force the Milwaukee Brewers and Kansas City Royals to spend $70 million on payroll when they're not making that much.
I think revenue sharing is needed too, but even if the cap was at say 70 - the yanks and sox yada yada yada would be at 70 every year. The crew and royals and what not would probably be around 40-60. That is still better than the way it is now, because the yanks wouldn't be able to have a jeter, a rod on the same team and still pay for 23 other spots ya know? I think it would divy up the talent farther and attendance would rise at the lower end teams because now "we feel we have at least a chance". don't think it will happen in my day though... a cap that is.
And even if the Players did agree to it, a cap would never work without revenue sharing. You can't force the Milwaukee Brewers and Kansas City Royals to spend $70 million on payroll when they're not making that much.
I think revenue sharing is needed too, but even if the cap was at say 70 - the yanks and sox yada yada yada would be at 70 every year. The crew and royals and what not would probably be around 40-60. That is still better than the way it is now, because the yanks wouldn't be able to have a jeter, a rod on the same team and still pay for 23 other spots ya know? I think it would divy up the talent farther and attendance would rise at the lower end teams because now "we feel we have at least a chance". don't think it will happen in my day though... a cap that is.
Upvote
0
can we split this thread into 2.....one full of my JOKE and sloopy bitching about it.......and a new one that would actually be meaningful to post on about the problems in baseball (yankees)?
Upvote
0
Sloopy45
Pimp Minister Sinister
BuckStocksHere: " think revenue sharing is needed too, but even if the cap was at say 70 - the yanks and sox yada yada yada would be at 70 every year. The crew and royals and what not would probably be around 40-60."
In that sense, a cap isn't reasonable. Lets say, for example, that the Yankees pull in $150 million. Its a lot more than that, but for argument's sake. A $70 million cap just means that Steinbrenner puts $80 million in his pocket without putting it back into baseball or his ball club.
A good system would have a cap and a floor (say, $100 million to $70 million) and any money that clubs like the Brew Crew can't make up to $70 million should be given to them from the big market clubs via revenue sharing.
"That is still better than the way it is now, because the yanks wouldn't be able to have a jeter, a rod on the same team and still pay for 23 other spots ya know?"
In this sense, I don't agree. I think the real injustice of the system is that teams that do make the right baseball decisions don't (a la the Indians) don't get to keep the players that they developed because they can't afford them. The Indians should've been able to resign Belle, Thome, ManRam, Colon, etc., the Yankees should have the leeway to resign Jeter, Rivera, Williams, Pettite, etc., and Seattle is the same with Griffey, Johnson, A-Rod, etc. You're penalizing teams that make the right moves by implementing a cap that would prevent them from resigning all their players even if they have the money to do so.
"don't think it will happen in my day though... a cap that is."
You're 100% right.
sears3820: "Sloopy is thinking you're BuckeyeNation12, the one with that made the "Free Maurice!" t-shirts last year."
He whines like that other kid did, so my bad.
Nation: "can we split this thread into 2.....one full of my JOKE and sloopy bitching about it.......and a new one that would actually be meaningful to post on about the problems in baseball (yankees)?"
Dude, SHUT UP!! Stop crying!! I've dropped it. You sound like a 2 year old. How many posts can you cry about me?? Are you a jilted Miami fan from the ol' Fiesta Bowl days?
Write three more posts about me, whining like a bitch.
In that sense, a cap isn't reasonable. Lets say, for example, that the Yankees pull in $150 million. Its a lot more than that, but for argument's sake. A $70 million cap just means that Steinbrenner puts $80 million in his pocket without putting it back into baseball or his ball club.
A good system would have a cap and a floor (say, $100 million to $70 million) and any money that clubs like the Brew Crew can't make up to $70 million should be given to them from the big market clubs via revenue sharing.
"That is still better than the way it is now, because the yanks wouldn't be able to have a jeter, a rod on the same team and still pay for 23 other spots ya know?"
In this sense, I don't agree. I think the real injustice of the system is that teams that do make the right baseball decisions don't (a la the Indians) don't get to keep the players that they developed because they can't afford them. The Indians should've been able to resign Belle, Thome, ManRam, Colon, etc., the Yankees should have the leeway to resign Jeter, Rivera, Williams, Pettite, etc., and Seattle is the same with Griffey, Johnson, A-Rod, etc. You're penalizing teams that make the right moves by implementing a cap that would prevent them from resigning all their players even if they have the money to do so.
"don't think it will happen in my day though... a cap that is."
You're 100% right.
sears3820: "Sloopy is thinking you're BuckeyeNation12, the one with that made the "Free Maurice!" t-shirts last year."
He whines like that other kid did, so my bad.
Nation: "can we split this thread into 2.....one full of my JOKE and sloopy bitching about it.......and a new one that would actually be meaningful to post on about the problems in baseball (yankees)?"
Dude, SHUT UP!! Stop crying!! I've dropped it. You sound like a 2 year old. How many posts can you cry about me?? Are you a jilted Miami fan from the ol' Fiesta Bowl days?
Write three more posts about me, whining like a bitch.
Upvote
0
Sloopy45
Pimp Minister Sinister
BuckStocksHere: "I think one of the great things about baseball, at least for me growing up as a kid, was being able to get attached to my hometown players. yount, molitor, gantner. these guys played with each other for 15 years!!!! that isn't going to happen anymore. It would be sweet if teams that made good draft decisions and had good minor leagues could keep their players."
Look: I have sympathy for the medium to small market teams like Cleveland, like Florida, Montreal, and like San Diego who've made all the right moves and get hurt by the system.
I don't have sympathy for the teams (big market included) who've made every dumb move in the book and are looking for a system to bail them out. The Cubs, Phillies, and White Sox have always had the capability to spend with anybody (outside the Yankees) and haven't won squat. Ditto for the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Mets who DO spend with anybody and constantly trip over themselves.
The bottom line is this: there're a lot more teams that don't deserve a system because they make mistakes than teams that get hurt by the system. The only big market team that's a Playoff Perennial since big money began (circa 1993) is the Yankees. When L.A., the Mets, the Chicago teams, Philly, and Red Sox are on that level, then there's a problem. So far (over that same span), those teams have been getting beat by the small market right decision teams like Florida, Anaheim, San Francisco, Arizona, Cleveland, Minnesota, and Houston.
Correct decisions & talent win baseball games, not money. If money was all that mattered, then Florida would've been swept by the Yankees last year and the result was quite different.
Look: I have sympathy for the medium to small market teams like Cleveland, like Florida, Montreal, and like San Diego who've made all the right moves and get hurt by the system.
I don't have sympathy for the teams (big market included) who've made every dumb move in the book and are looking for a system to bail them out. The Cubs, Phillies, and White Sox have always had the capability to spend with anybody (outside the Yankees) and haven't won squat. Ditto for the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Mets who DO spend with anybody and constantly trip over themselves.
The bottom line is this: there're a lot more teams that don't deserve a system because they make mistakes than teams that get hurt by the system. The only big market team that's a Playoff Perennial since big money began (circa 1993) is the Yankees. When L.A., the Mets, the Chicago teams, Philly, and Red Sox are on that level, then there's a problem. So far (over that same span), those teams have been getting beat by the small market right decision teams like Florida, Anaheim, San Francisco, Arizona, Cleveland, Minnesota, and Houston.
Correct decisions & talent win baseball games, not money. If money was all that mattered, then Florida would've been swept by the Yankees last year and the result was quite different.
Upvote
0
nobody said money is all that mattered. but it certainly doesnt hurt, and it certainly creates an unfair advantage. teams like the mets just know how to screw that advantage up.
Upvote
0
BuckStocksHere
Semper Fi!
I agree to a point, but, would you rather have the ability to spend that money or not? would you rather be the yankees or brewers? red sox or royals?Sloopy45 said:
Talent may win ball games, but money can buy that talent.
It isn't the ultimate determinant to winning a championship, but it certainly is a benefit. You can make last minute trades and add tons of payroll. You can go out and buy any player you want. You dont' have to worry about dumping players who are nearing their contract year for fear of getting nothing in return. It's a crappy cycle that isn't changing.
Anybody can rise up with some great drafts and superb youngsters, but after florida won the 97 series, they dumped everyone for salary reasons. pathetic. the white sox were winning and did the same thing. ick.
The facts are that it isn't a level playing field regardless. It is what it is and its all we have because the players want a free market and the owners want to buy players so they are stuck. When the owners try to stop it they get accused of collusion and all hell breaks out. i hate it. i love baseball. i hate the system.
Upvote
0