The Last 25 Championships--MLB has the Best Model

[motherscratcher]

I'm not an advocate of a salary cap, but you can't possibly be saying that there is a level playing field in baseball. That all teams have an equal opportunity to win a championship. That the Indians and pirates have the same chance to build a championship caliber team as the Yankees red sox and phillies.

Are you saying that?

[macnole]

Well as I posted, the facts support it more so than in any other professional sport.

So the question is what are you saying? That we need to give in to emotional arguments about "fairness" over objective facts?

So yes--they do if they use their money wisely and develop talent, just as the marlins, rays, phils, jays, white sox, pirates, twins, etc all have in the past.

Here are the last 27 yrs worth of winners--19 different champs since '83...new teams, old teams, large market small market.

giants
yankees
phillies
Red Sox
Cardinals
White Sox
Marlins
Angels
Diamondbacks
Braves
Blue Jays
Twins
Reds
A's
Dodgers
Mets
Royals
Tigers
Orioles

an interesting blog
http://www.e-sports.com/articles/2267/1/The-Luxury-Tax-conundrum/Page1.html

[Mr Baseball World]

Of course the economics of baseball have changed dramatically over the last 27 years as well. Back in the late 80's and early 90's you had collusion..........you had the Yankees with still way more revenue than the rest but George spending on salaries on a par with everyone else and pocketing huge profits.

[motherscratcher]

Macnole, if you are seriously arguing that the Yankees and red sox do have a clear andndistinct advantage In team building, then I'm not sure it would ever be possible to convince you.

But just to be honest, why don't you focus on the last 10 years or so when the economics of the game reallynstarted to change and show a big disparity in team payroll. How many times have the Yankees made the playoffs and had the opportunity to win a championship? What about the red sox?

Obviously there are other factors. Obviously.

Obviously a smaller payroll team can make it and win a championship. Obviously a large market team can do a bad job and fall short.

But, are you really arguing that the Yankees have no advantages over over teams, and just continue to make the playoffs year after year after year because they are smarter and better run than all the other teams? They would be just as good with, say, a $80mil payroll?

You must be aYankees fan.

And again, I'm not advocating a salary cap. I'm not convinced that is the solution. I'm not convinced a solution exists to tell you the truth.

But enough of this mularky about a level playing field. It's not level.

[JAMESOSSWALD]

My problem with baseball and it has to do with a salary cap.

Here is why I lost interest in baseball and its because my favorite team is one of these small market teams. I know the minute a player is brought up from the minors to the majors and is successful, within 3 years he will be almost surely dealt to a major market team for future minor leaguers. That to me takes away the fun of baseball.

Since the NFL moved to a hard cap it has been much more exciting for small market teams than baseball. As a small market fan whose team won a championship I feel confident that when we do have a successful team, it will be short lived as I know we will be rebuilding again in 2 to 4 seasons.

[macnole]

mothersratcher,

you can continue to ignore the facts and feel disadvantaged. Or you can celebrate the fact that we may even add one more new team to the champ mix this year.

The last ten years are even more spread out than previous years, but I already posted those facts.

Obviously if you're stuck on emotion, the results and the facts mean nothing to you, so that's that.

Yes the NBA is so exciting... Lakers anyone? And the NHL champs? If you refer to playoff teams, that has nothing to do with salary, but with format--you have to really suck to miss the post season.
And the NFL? give me a break. look at how many different champs. And quite a few teams without playoff appearances even though loser rules for getting in.

trimhunter--basically ditto above but at least I can understand what you wrote. I just happen to disagree on the basis of fact. Teams and players make choices. Many examples of guys who didn't do the "Scott Boras" drug. As I said, a salary cap at the MLB level could unbalance the playing field massively in the minors.

If I rabidly support my team through tix and merchandising, and they give that money to a competitor, and consquently suck more often, then I stop supporting them. It's competition and it's business--not entertainment rationing.

I knew this would get discussions going. Wanted to get off the normalization train! God bless you Nev :D
cheers

[JohnnyBlazers]

I think it is definitely harder for a small market team to compete, but not impossible - the Rays, Twins (until this season), Brewers have models that seem to be working. There are several major market teams that are floundering (Dodgers, Mets, Cubs, White Sox) to name a few that are hit or miss from season to season. They may compete on some seasons but given their organizational incompetence, cannot be consistent winners.
The Yankees are on a level all to themselves as the money they brings in can cover up a lot of weaknesses. The Red Sox spent a lot of money on Gonzalez & Crawford and look how that turned out. The Rays have great scouting and minor league system and made the playoffs - the point being is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
We currently have a soft cap in place because of revenue sharing - if we really wanted to level the playing field, give teams that are losing key free agents (Type A as they used to be called), a larger share of the luxury tax pie so they can have a decent chance tor re-sign their players. For ex the Brewers are probably gonna lose Fielder and if they do, probably wont contend and go into rebuilding mode-that's what turns away lots of fans about the current system - give those teams a higher percentage of the luxury tax pool

[macnole]

[quote:b3fa111b9c="johnnyblazers"]I think it is definitely harder for a small market team to compete, but not impossible - the Rays, Twins (until this season), Brewers have models that seem to be working. There are several major market teams that are floundering (Dodgers, Mets, Cubs, White Sox) to name a few that are hit or miss from season to season. They may compete on some seasons but given their organizational incompetence, cannot be consistent winners.
The Yankees are on a level all to themselves as the money they brings in can cover up a lot of weaknesses. The Red Sox spent a lot of money on Gonzalez & Crawford and look how that turned out. The Rays have great scouting and minor league system and made the playoffs - the point being is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
We currently have a soft cap in place because of revenue sharing - if we really wanted to level the playing field, give teams that are losing key free agents (Type A as they used to be called), a larger share of the luxury tax pie so they can have a decent chance tor re-sign their players. For ex the Brewers are probably gonna lose Fielder and if they do, probably wont contend and go into rebuilding mode-that's what turns away lots of fans about the current system - give those teams a higher percentage of the luxury tax pool[/quote:b3fa111b9c]

Smart suggestions. Agree with all.

[danielz]

You can't compare baseball to basketball because hoops only needs 3 good players to compete.

[warrenbob52]

The disparity in baseball is if the Yankees sigh a free agent and he turns out to be a dud it doesn't hurt them that much because they just go out and sign another player. A small market team that goes out and signs a high price player better hit on him or they are screwed. Take the Tigers if Victor Martinez would have turned out to be a dud Detroit probably doesn't even make the playoffs let alone beat the Yankees.