Hehe, I guess having $100's of millions in payroll doesn't always buy you a World Series team. One less championship that NY will be able to buy, GOOD, GODDAMN GREAT!!!
Printable View
Hehe, I guess having $100's of millions in payroll doesn't always buy you a World Series team. One less championship that NY will be able to buy, GOOD, GODDAMN GREAT!!!
I don't watch a lot of baseball, but, I was glad to see the Yankees booted out! I am tired of them buying their way to world series!
I'm sick of everyone complaining that the Yankees are buying their way to a World Series. Fact #'s 1 and 2: the team with the highest payroll to ever win a world series is the 2004 Boston Red Sox, also the team with the least amount of home-grown (drafted) talent is again the 2004 Boston Red Sox. This being said, why is it bad for an owner to want to win? I don't get this sentiment among sports fans? Are you guys naive? Take any sport at all where a team owner exists, then take your favorite team. Would you rather your owner spend very little of what he could, given a sold out stadium, tons of merchandising profit, etc... or would you rather your owner spend everything he could in order to put together the best team out there for the money so that the fans of said team have something to root for every year?
Maybe you all grew up with winning teams, but I grew up with the Cubs, a team that makes probably the third most profit, next to the Yankees and Red Sox, in all of baseball, yet hasn't put together back-back winning seasons (with the exception of 2003-2004) since 1944, 1945. The Cubs choose not to spend very much, they have a payroll over 100 million yes, but compared to what they could spend, this is a joke. They sell out every game at Wrigley, even when they're 50 games below .500.
So, again, I ask, why do you not like a team or owner whose whole goal is to win, do you not root for your team because you want them to win? If you could do something so that your team had a better chance to win, wouldn't you do it? Aren't owners like Steinbrenner, Moreno (Red Sox Owner right?), and others like them really just the best type of sports fan there is? Don't get me wrong, I hate the Red Sox and their owner (because of some dim-witted remarks), but you have to give these guys credit, they are some of the biggest fans in the game. So much so that they will spend and spend and spend until they win. Gosh, the rest of us should be so lucky with our owners. Yet, we still hear, they buy championships blah blah blah. This is just an ignorant position, one that is born of jealousy that our favorite team's owner doesn't try and do the same.
Trust me, I used to say the same thing, then I had a friend point out the difference and ask me, "If your favorite team's owner always tried to put the best team out on the field, no matter the cost, wouldn't you want to thank him, not chastise him?"
Well said, Sean... But the fact remains - you don't have to worry about being torn apart between your old home and your new home... The Yankees ain't playing the White Sox... :smiley37:
bbbwwwwwaaaaaahahahahahahahaha.... :smiley36:
Baseball should be a SPORT, not an ENTERPRISE, so it should be played on as level a playing field as possible. Having a huge disparity in payroll makes it boring for MOST of the fans (you know, we folks who live in "fly over" country (between LA and NY). Yawn, watch three of four teams take home half the championships and let all the little chumps take the rest and fight over who can compete with the fat payroll teams.
The Yankee's suck, hands down....
No Baka, your logic makes no sense though. The fact is, if you own a baseball team, you're wealthy enough, not matter what market you're in, to spend money and then spend even more. Like I said, don't be blinded by a jealousy of owners who are true fans and want their teams to win. Most teams by the way are owned by people who made their money elsewhere, as in another state/city/market. So, again, I ask, wouldn't you want the owner of your favorite team to do everything possible to win, yes or no? If you answer no, then okay, I guess you're not much of a fan, but if you say yes, then you cannot complain about what owners that choose to spend do, in fact you are more likely going, "I wish our dumb ass owner would spend like that."
I just had another thought No Baka. I agree that baseball should not be looked at as an enterprise. So, if this is the case, let's evaluate which owners are really the ones making it that way...
Let's look at the Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, and Baltimore Orioles. All these teams exist in profitable markets, though small. Look at the success of football teams from those areas. These teams though do not spend money on their team. How many times have you read about Minnesota fans complaining that their team could go all the way if only the owner would spend the money. But, how does the owner react, gives the team just enough money to do well enough to go .500. But, the owner ultimately won't spend any more money because he wants a new stadium. He refuses to spend or expand because he wants a new stadium. But wait, Minnesota fans are some of the most loyal fans in sports, look at their support of the Twins from the late 80's-90's, look at their support for the Vikings through thick and thin. So, the owner of the Twins doesn't really need a new stadium, but he is stuck on the idea that his team exists solely to make him a profit. We can do this exercise with the Kansas City Royals and Peter Angelos of the Baltimore Orioles. Just look at Angelos, he was the only owner to vote against the Expos being put into Washington because he was afraid he'd lose market share and money. But, wait, this guy has plenty of money, why is he so worried about profits?
Heck, let's look at the Cubs, the Tribune company makes HUGE profit off them, yet does not choose to put a truly winning team out on the field or in the managerial and coaching roles. They know that if they win just enough, or offer just enough hope, Wrigley Field will sell out every game. Their sole purpose of the club is to make money not to win.
Now, let us compare this to owners that are baseball fans, do they view their teams as enterprises, or do they view their teams as baseball fans would if they were owners.
Steinbrenner, Moreno, whoever owns the Dodgers, Giants, Rangers, these guys want to win and are willing to do whatever it takes. Often times this costs them more money than it makes them. Yet, they do this, they spend because they want to win.
Conclusion, the people making baseball an enterprise are the "small-market" team owners that got into the business for the sole purpose of profit. The people that make baseball a game are the owners, "small-market," or not who spend regardless of profit margin cuts so that they can put a winning product on the field. Again, I agree Baka, Baseball should be a game, not an enterprise, but it's not owners like Steinbrenner and Moreno, it's owners like Angelos, the Tribune Co. that make it into penny pinching, profit mongering, enterprise. Let me ask you one last question, how much does it cost you to go see a game near you? In the most expensive city in the United States, I can still go to a Yankees game for 10 dollars, that's it. Now, who's ruining baseball, Steinbrenner or the guy who owns the Royals and charges 35 dollars for a bleacher seat?
Sean, I agree with you. Besides, Drayton McLane outright bought another year out of The Rocket so he could put the best team on the field. Roger demanded a rediculous sum of $$$ to put off retirement for 1 more year. I don't care how you slice it, paying him 18 million for 1 season is buying him! And every Astros fan couldn't be happier he did!
Sean - you made the EXACT case why I hate the Cubs. The "sheep" that follow the Cubs in the Chicago market are too blind to see that they will NEVER have a winning team. The Tribune company doesn't want to spend money on buidling a team - they'd rather spend money on putting up advertising billboards at Wrigley Field so that the people across the street can't watch the game. Their rise to "glory" two seasons ago was a fluke - and of course the "sheep" blame Bartman (an overzealous fan) for their failure.... The Cubs will make sure they keep one good player around, which is just enough to arouse interest in the team. It's absolutely sickening to me...
Yeah, but at least they didn't sell out by destroying one of the best old school ballparks in baseball and then building the largest parking lot structure in the country. I don't care if the amenities are nice, it's still ass-ugly on the outside and inside (and mind you Reinhole did this while Camden Yards, Jacobs Field, and other 'renaissance' ballparks were becoming the norm, instead he pinched pennies). Plus, the White Sox have an even worse owner, let's be honest the history of the south side is just as bad for futility, and we all know Reinhole is a big time penny pincher. This year's sox, even if they win it all, which they won't, neither of these AL teams could beat Houston or St. Louis, will be nothing next year. This has been their pattern over the past 20 years. An aberration of a winning season, then back to normal .500 or just below or above. And they always seem to do it with one real staple pitcher, Mark Buerhle, and then the great season, but one hit wonder type, Baldwin, Loaiza, Garland. I'm sorry, but Reinhole is just as bad as the Tribune company, but at least the Tribune company did not take away our beloved ball park. I'm sorry but I just don't buy my Dad's belief that Cellular One is better than the original Comiskey, no way, no how. So, recognize that any kind of following or belief that the White Sox have a great owner or are a great organization is just as much a fantasy as if the Cubs were that way.
In my opinion, all professional sports teams should have mandatory salary cap. Let's say $100 million per year for all pro baseball teams. THAT would make a level playing field. Any owner could choose to spend less, but if he did, the fans would pillory him or her until they chose to stop being such a damn cheapskate. If such a mandatory salary cap existed, I would have no problem with NY winning so many championships if McLane chose to spend only $60 million on his team, and I would build up a movement to convince McLane to spend more. But as it is, teams are funded on the whims of their owners, making the sport less competitive, more boring, and of less interest to people in towns with teams that cannot compete due to lack of funding so they can't buy all the free agents they want.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. Baseball has become less interesting and more boring as a result of many things, which is why it is now much less popular than it sued to be.
Yeah - but at least the Sox don't put on a pretense of respectability the Cubs do... And everyone knows ReinsDORK is just that - an ASSHOLE!!! It was absolutely amazing he put together the Bulls winning teams.... Everyone apparently thinks the Tribune company is a great place - Cub fans certainly don't bitch nearly as much as they do about ReinsDORK...Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacFU
No Baka, salary cap is a result of player's unions, not owner's groups. So, blame the players for huge payrolls. Blame the owners for not being willing to pay even though they couldn't lose money if they tried. Finally, let us agree then that for sports without salary caps, the solution to the problem is a League Minimum Salary Floor. Seriously, if you want to play with the big boys of wealth, then you gotta ante up, and so, why not make a minimum baseball salary of 100 Million per season. That would be so awesome, you know you'd get good teams in all cities then because contraction would be sure to follow, and so the diluted player pool wouldn't exist. OOooooh, somebody make me commissioner of baseball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacFU
I disagree, then even with teams paying $100 million in salaries, the few teams that can afford a $203 million dollar payroll would be outspending their rivals and have a huge advantage in buying talent. I think as a result of accepting a franchise, owners should be subject to paying no more than X amount in salaries. The game the way it is is far less competitive than it could be, are you saying you like to stifle competition and let those teams with owners with billion dollar pockets spend their way to victory? Cause no matter what, resources in a competion DO matter, so do many other things such as talent, will and ingenuity, but resources are a key part of winning.
No, I'd like to eliminate loser owners like the Tribune Co., Oakland's, Kansas City's, Minnesota's, Tamba Bay's, Baltimore's. These are the bad guys. The guys who do not spend. Owners of baseball teams are already billionaires, or hundred millionaires who are in groups together to be billionaires. Therefore, by creating a league minimum salary you force owners to either cough up the cash because they want to win or be forced out of the game. If this means we have more Steinbrenners, Morenos, Ranger's Owners, Dallas Mavericks, type owners, then I'm all for it. At least then we'll have owners who are fans and want to win. Again, you don't like not having a salary cap, don't complain to the owners, there's nothing they'd love more. Complain to the players.