Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    the 4-1-4 Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,783

    Default

    Interesting thought. Let's support the "fair weather" fans by forcing good players to go to bad organizations.

    How do you ever make a bad organization good, if the bad organization canít ever make a legit run at marquee players?
    Besides the point that Ďfair weatherí fans have money too. After all, that is exactly what professional sports are all about, making money that is.

    Competition is what keeps people interested in sports, both watching and participating. If your local team can never be competitive, why support them? Like I said, maybe the best solution is to only have the Yankees, and the Red Sox, and the Mets, along with the other major market teams.
    I know if that happened I would have a lot more money in my pocket.
    Last edited by jasper45; 09-21-2007 at 02:56 PM.


  2. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper45 View Post
    What facts? The fact that small market teams will never be able to compete with the bank account of teams like the Yankees? I would also be surprised if there wasn't any "homegrown" talent on the Yankees roster, I mean really, how many people live in the metro area? It would be a far bigger story if a star was homegrown and played here. Of course then it would just be a matter of time before the blank check lured them to some other team.

    Revenue sharing and a salary cap would do wonders for MLB, as it has for the NFL. If you look closely at the salary cap, and the rules that make it up, there would be no fire sales after a championship. It would cripple them, as it did to the 49ers and the Cowboys when they wrote out blank checks to guys not worth it. I think that what teams like the Marlins and Diamondbacks did cheapens the game, just my opinion, but it cheapens it. I would also like to see the Yankees try and keep a championship caliber team when they can't just write out a ridiculous check to solve it.
    I think you really need to get outside of the realm of the Yankees, and see what it's like from the other perspective. Not every team has a deep pockets owner who can outbid every other team in baseball. Sure, teams like the Red Sox and Yanks spend a lot of money, because they are in markets that give them a ton of money. I'm quite sure they could out spend every other team out there, except for southern California. I leave out the Cubs because they are just doomed to choke no matter how much they spend .


    What's the matter, afraid of real competition?
    Parity has made just about every team in the NFL capable of being a contender, and it keeps a lot more people interested for a lot longer into the season, and it keeps them in the stands. It would also keep people spending their money on their teams.
    Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of baseball, and love to watch Jeter play. However, if it wasn't for the fact that my team is actually in a pennant race for the first time in 25 years, I probably wouldn't have even watched any baseball after training camp broke. And that fact IS bad for baseball.

    Facts in the way of my argument? Maybe if you live in New York.

    If you want good attendance and popularity accross the board, shared revenue is a good thing. The reason there are less than 10,000 people at some of these games is because they are 25-30 games out of first place every season.
    I've had that first hand here, and have seen what it's like. This is the first time in 25 years that the Brewers are in a bonified pennant race. The attendance shows it, as well. People are going out to the park, people are buying their merchandise and are generally excited about baseball. It's alot like it was back in '81 and '82, not that I remember it that well being 10, but it was fun.
    It's tough to stay interested in the sport when spring training starts, and you know that your team has no chance at all. It also bites when you know there is no chance for a big-name free agent to sign with your team. Try to consider A-Rod in a Royals uniform, or even theink back to Gary Sheffield's first couple of years in the majors. Do you even know where he played those first couple of seasons? He bragged about tanking plays so that he would be traded.

    I don't know if shared revenue would work. I do know that it works in the NFL. There was a time when the Packers were the wasteland of the NFL. Players went there as a punishment. There were other places as bleak and as desperate as Green Bay was. Shared revenue, salary caps and unrestricted free agency were all tools designed to help make more teams competetive, and improve the league as a whole.

    Take a trip to Kansas City and see how much excitement there is with baseball right now, or Tampa.
    i would think that Steinbrenner would want all of baseball to be more successfull. Maybe he doesn't care, and maybe Yankees and Red Sox fans don't care, I really don't know. If they don't care, then maybe we should just dump all the small market teams out of baseball, and only have 10 or 12 teams in all. That could be another solution.

    I do know that in years past, come September, the Brewers would draw 5,000-10,000 total for those games. This year, with a pennant race in high gear, every home game left is already sold out.
    Your argument is so fundamentally flawed on every level, I don't even know where to start.

    Small market teams CAN and DO compete all the time. The size of the market has nothing to do with it. Historically, when a small market team does well, they do wel for one year. After that, with their players market value up, they either unload their players (Florida Marlins) or refuse to invest the money in their team to retain their players (like Minnesota wil do this year).

    If your argument had merit, then ALL large market teams would be in first place and all small market teams would be in last? Look at the Chisox, two years after winning the WS, they suck as bad as a team can suck. Then look at your own Brewers. Small market team in a pennant race.

    If a movie was terrible, woud you go to see it? Usually not. So why would I pay good money to go to watch a MLB team that puts a terribel team on the field? I'm not taking strictly won/loss record alone. I'm taking about a team that can afford to put a better team on the field but do not, solely because of not wanting to spend money.

    There were years that the Yankees were terrible. In those years (early 70's, late 80's , early 90's), they did not put 4 million people in the seats. Good product-good crowd.

    Example out of baseball? The NY Islanders (Potvin sucks). A terribe team in a large market-low crowds. The NY Knicks. A terrible team-low crowds.

    The Yankees DO make all of basebal more succesful. When the Yankees come to Milwaukee, how easy is it to get a seat? They sell out stadiums everywhere they go. Even in places that have to blow the dust out of the hot dog machines in the upper deck due to lack of use. Good product-good crowds.

    The most amazingly ignorant part of your posts are your assertion that baseball needs revenue sharing. Baseball HAS revenue sharing. In 2006, the Yankees paid about $77 million in revenue sharing and uxury tax. That is money handed out directly to the other teams. The Rd sox paid like $51 million.

    I've had this argument with others on here whose starting point for the argument is "the Yankees suck"! The problem comes when they have to base their arguments on fact. They can't do it.

  3. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,693

    Default

    Like all sports, baseball goes in cycles. The champion this year is the bottom of the barrel next year. Growing up, the Bruins & Celtics were a dominent force, the Pats were no where to be found and the Red Sox...well you know..."Wait to next year". Now it's totally the opposite.

    Having a big payroll (big name players) is just that. A team wins as a team, not as individuals. Paying high salaries, doesn't guarantee a championship, just a team that should be in contention.

    Since 2000 there have been 7 different teams that have been World Series Champions: Yankees, Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, White Sox & Cardinals. Excluding the Yankees & Red Sox the other teams had payrolls significantly less that those 2 teams when they won the WS. These teams had salaries that ranged from $24 million to $130 million less than the Yanks & Red Sox during those years. Meaning they were able to compete and win.

    But we digress from the original topic. The Red Sox are now in the playoffs after their win last night in TB and a Detroit loss. Now if we can only hold on to win the division over the Evil Empire.

    The Yanks are making it interesting at least for their fans. Extra inning games, must be alot of Tums being used.

  4. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onebugle View Post
    Like all sports, baseball goes in cycles. The champion this year is the bottom of the barrel next year. Growing up, the Bruins & Celtics were a dominent force, the Pats were no where to be found and the Red Sox...well you know..."Wait to next year". Now it's totally the opposite.

    Having a big payroll (big name players) is just that. A team wins as a team, not as individuals. Paying high salaries, doesn't guarantee a championship, just a team that should be in contention.

    Since 2000 there have been 7 different teams that have been World Series Champions: Yankees, Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, White Sox & Cardinals. Excluding the Yankees & Red Sox the other teams had payrolls significantly less that those 2 teams when they won the WS. These teams had salaries that ranged from $24 million to $130 million less than the Yanks & Red Sox during those years. Meaning they were able to compete and win.

    But we digress from the original topic. The Red Sox are now in the playoffs after their win last night in TB and a Detroit loss. Now if we can only hold on to win the division over the Evil Empire.

    The Yanks are making it interesting at least for their fans. Extra inning games, must be alot of Tums being used.
    This will be one interesting week. The Yanks have Tampa Bay and Baltimore. The Sox have the Twins and I think the A's. That schedue heavily favors the Yankees. Especially if the Yankee bats keep on pounding.

  5. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    This will be one interesting week. The Yanks have Tampa Bay and Baltimore. The Sox have the Twins and I think the A's. That schedue heavily favors the Yankees. Especially if the Yankee bats keep on pounding.
    The Sox finish up with TB today, then 2 with Oakland, finishing up with 4 against the Twins. It will be an interesting week, none of the opposing teams are laying down, they are not going out without a fight.
    Last edited by onebugle; 09-23-2007 at 09:51 AM.

  6. #26
    the 4-1-4 Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,783

    Default

    Historically, when a small market team does well, they do wel for one year. After that, with their players market value up, they either unload their players (Florida Marlins) or refuse to invest the money in their team to retain their players (like Minnesota wil do this year).

    This point helps to make my case for a salary cap. A properly worded and enforced salary cap that is equal across the board, such as the NFLís would prevent this. Teams should not be able to sell off their players following a championship, or even a championship run.
    I would also be in favor of a salary minimum for each team, properly enforced and worded.

    ALL large market teams would be in first place and all small market teams would be in last? Look at the Chisox, two years after winning the WS, they suck as bad as a team can suck.
    No, not necessarily. If you look over the long haul, the most successful teams have been primarily larger markets. Granted, years of having Bud Selig run the Brewers may have soured me some, but if there is no money to spend, it canít be spent.

    The NY Islanders (Potvin sucks). A terribe team in a large market-low crowds. The NY Knicks. A terrible team-low crowds.
    The NHL and the NBA both have terrible track records, and teams move almost yearly. The Arena Football League almost has more security and consistency than both.

    Then look at your own Brewers. Small market team in a pennant race.
    This is the first season in 25 years that they have been in the race, although that may have ended now that they are 2.5 games back. It is still a race at this point, though. They are also on pace to have their first winning season since 1992.
    Up until this point in time, any quality players have always been at risk for being signed to somewhere else.
    The other big notable change with them though, is that they are now owned by a Ďdeep-pocketsí owner, who by all appearances so far will be willing to spend some money.
    Jeff Suppan was actually a so-called marquee free-agent they actually signed, granted he is no A-Rod, but you have to start somewhere.
    When the Yankees come to Milwaukee, how easy is it to get a seat?
    The last example I can cite first hand is from 2005. I can tell you with all honesty that the series was well attended, but nothing close to sold out. I managed to get to all 3 games here, and walked up to the box office an hour before the first pitch. That is one of the things I miss about when the Brewers were in the A.L,
    This year is the exception, success does bring people out to the park.

    Baseball HAS revenue sharing. In 2006, the Yankees paid about $77 million in revenue sharing and uxury tax.
    That was a mistake on my part. I was talking about several things the NFL has done to increase popularity with the league, and included the revenue sharing.

    I've had this argument with others on here whose starting point for the argument is "the Yankees suck"!
    You wonít get that from me, because the Yankees donít suck. They are baseballís most successful franchise. I will admit that Iím a bit jealous, and greatly admire their success and tradition, how can anyone not?
    Iíve just been trying to think of how baseball cold be made better. There isnít a lot that is wrong with baseball, but it could still be better.


    All other things aside, I think the world series winner comes out of the Yankees-Red Sox race. I think both clubs are a full head taller than anything the National League has to offer this year.

  7. #27
    Forum Member nyckftbl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    On a Hill, overlooking George's Kingdom
    Posts
    2,549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Your argument is so fundamentally flawed on every level, I don't even know where to start.

    Small market teams CAN and DO compete all the time. The size of the market has nothing to do with it. Historically, when a small market team does well, they do wel for one year. After that, with their players market value up, they either unload their players (Florida Marlins) or refuse to invest the money in their team to retain their players (like Minnesota wil do this year).

    If your argument had merit, then ALL large market teams would be in first place and all small market teams would be in last? Look at the Chisox, two years after winning the WS, they suck as bad as a team can suck. Then look at your own Brewers. Small market team in a pennant race.

    If a movie was terrible, woud you go to see it? Usually not. So why would I pay good money to go to watch a MLB team that puts a terribel team on the field? I'm not taking strictly won/loss record alone. I'm taking about a team that can afford to put a better team on the field but do not, solely because of not wanting to spend money.

    There were years that the Yankees were terrible. In those years (early 70's, late 80's , early 90's), they did not put 4 million people in the seats. Good product-good crowd.

    Example out of baseball? The NY Islanders (Potvin sucks). A terribe team in a large market-low crowds. The NY Knicks. A terrible team-low crowds.

    The Yankees DO make all of basebal more succesful. When the Yankees come to Milwaukee, how easy is it to get a seat? They sell out stadiums everywhere they go. Even in places that have to blow the dust out of the hot dog machines in the upper deck due to lack of use. Good product-good crowds.

    The most amazingly ignorant part of your posts are your assertion that baseball needs revenue sharing. Baseball HAS revenue sharing. In 2006, the Yankees paid about $77 million in revenue sharing and uxury tax. That is money handed out directly to the other teams. The Rd sox paid like $51 million.

    I've had this argument with others on here whose starting point for the argument is "the Yankees suck"! The problem comes when they have to base their arguments on fact. They can't do it.
    Nice!
    Proud East Coast Traditionalist.

  8. #28
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    Potvin sucks
    If nothing else....George is consistent.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  9. #29
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,693

    Default

    Thank you Yankees for the Red Sox: AL East Division Champions.....first time in 12 years.

    What a great play by the Orioles...bases loaded, 2 outs, bunt to win the game......I don't think any body saw that coming.
    Last edited by onebugle; 09-29-2007 at 12:27 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What Apparatus Color works for You?
    By hwoods in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 02:44 PM
  2. Yankees vs. Red Sox
    By GeorgeWendtCFI in forum The Sports Exchange
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-18-2005, 05:06 PM
  3. Winners seeing red?
    By ullrichk in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-22-2005, 10:16 PM
  4. Yankees-Red Sox The battle continues!
    By NJFFSA16 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 04-27-2005, 05:24 PM
  5. Go Red Sox!
    By firekid1234 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 11-23-2004, 10:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts