Jump to content

A Salary Cap Might Be In MLBPA's Favor


crawdad

Recommended Posts

I explained why not BTerp. Do you honestly see a bunch of Yanks/Mets fans switching their allegiances to the Royals/Marlins/Rays? Why would they do that? Sure, some may go to the games, but they're not going to switch favorite teams because they don't have to go into the city. Working really well for the Nets huh? TV ratings would be very poor as well. And when they go to the game, what stadium are they going to? Yes, over the course of 50 years, the fanbase will grow, but it's unlikely to ever be high, because people that live there now have no reason to switch teams, and the future children in that area are likely to be raised as Mets/Yanks fans, and if they just choose on their own, their probably going to pick the more successful teams. The Yanks/Mets will have a huge revenue advantage over the new team, and have the edge in already being much better than the possible teams that would move, so they are much more likely to continue to be better. This isn't like the Nats coming to DC going up against a team that is in a different market and has been bad for many years.

If NYC got two teams instead of one when the Mets were created, NYC could have supported them, because there was a huge population in that area that didn't have a favorite team since they used to be Dodgers/Giants fans who disliked the Yanks. Now, I don't see why it would work, but there are plenty of biased fans on here who would love for that to happen. Even if you get your wish, the Yanks will still sellout every game and get incredible revenue from TV, that would not even things out at all.

So you want an owner to choose the NYC area where there's no demand for a team, won't be much of a fan base that chooses your team as their favorite team, and they have to pay for the stadium. Wow, that sounds appealing.

There's no way a stadium that was largely paid for by the Yanks/Mets is going to be allowed to be used by team x.

No one is suggesting moving a team to any of those cities you mentioned. There aren't many teams that should move anyway. The A's and Marlins are getting new parks and are in good markets, so that leaves the Rays and maybe the Royals as options unless I'm forgetting someone. I don't think the Royals should be moved, so that just leaves the Rays. They could move to Vegas, maybe Charlotte, or Nashville, or Portland. If I was an owner, I'd rather go one of those places where I can likely get a nice new park built for me, instead of paying for much of or all of my new park in the NYC area, where there isn't a demand for you.

The increased revenue sharing/salary cap/salary floor system is much more likely to be successful imo, and will have an immediate impact. While the Drungo approach would by his admission, is very long term, and in my opinion, has a much lower chance of succeeding, while also have a possible short term and even long term negative impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I explained why not BTerp. Do you honestly see a bunch of Yanks/Mets fans switching their allegiances to the Royals/Marlins/Rays? Why would they do that? Sure, some may go to the games, but they're not going to switch favorite teams because they don't have to go into the city. Working really well for the Nets huh? TV ratings would be very poor as well. And when they go to the game, what stadium are they going to? Yes, over the course of 50 years, the fanbase will grow, but it's unlikely to ever be high, because people that live there now have no reason to switch teams, and the future children in that area are likely to be raised as Mets/Yanks fans, and if they just choose on their own, their probably going to pick the more successful teams. The Yanks/Mets will have a huge revenue advantage over the new team, and have the edge in already being much better than the possible teams that would move, so they are much more likely to continue to be better. This isn't like the Nats coming to DC going up against a team that is in a different market and has been bad for many years.

If NYC got two teams instead of one when the Mets were created, NYC could have supported them, because there was a huge population in that area that didn't have a favorite team since they used to be Dodgers/Giants fans who disliked the Yanks. Now, I don't see why it would work, but there are plenty of biased fans on here who would love for that to happen. Even if you get your wish, the Yanks will still sellout every game and get incredible revenue from TV, that would not even things out at all.

So you want an owner to choose the NYC area where there's no demand for a team, won't be much of a fan base that chooses your team as their favorite team, and they have to pay for the stadium. Wow, that sounds appealing.

You aren't taking into account the simply massive number of people we're talking about. Almost two-and-a-half times as many as the Baltimore-Washington region. And most of them are outside the city, either spread out over Long Island, or in large concentrations over northern New Jersey.

Let's say a team moves to New Jersey, to Newark or Jersey City or someplace else similar. The people in that area have a choice. They can try and get tickets to the Yankees or Mets (exceedingly scarce and exorbitantly priced), plus have to fight their way through traffic or transit into the city which could take forever. Or, they can go watch the new team closer to home, where prices are likely a little cheaper and more available just from having more on the market.

As more go, more will become fans, and the fanbase will grow from there.

There's no way a stadium that was largely paid for by the Yanks/Mets is going to be allowed to be used by team x.

I never said that. But, in another place (say, Baltimore), it could be possible.

No one is suggesting moving a team to any of those cities you mentioned. There aren't many teams that should move anyway. The A's and Marlins are getting new parks and are in good markets, so that leaves the Rays and maybe the Royals as options unless I'm forgetting someone. I don't think the Royals should be moved, so that just leaves the Rays. They could move to Vegas, maybe Charlotte, or Nashville, or Portland. If I was an owner, I'd rather go one of those places where I can likely get a nice new park built for me, instead of paying for much of or all of my new park in the NYC area, where there isn't a demand for you.

But then in 20 years the park isn't so nice and new anymore, and everything starts over.

Why not stop the Yankees now so that team that want to move (or are created in later expansion) to those places have a better chance?

The increased revenue sharing/salary cap/salary floor system is much more likely to be successful imo, and will have an immediate impact. While the Drungo approach would by his admission, is very long term, and in my opinion, has a much lower chance of succeeding, while also have a possible short term and even long term negative impact.

Again, that is a question of personal preference then what has a chance of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't taking into account the simply massive number of people we're talking about. Almost two-and-a-half times as many as the Baltimore-Washington region. And most of them are outside the city, either spread out over Long Island, or in large concentrations over northern New Jersey.

Let's say a team moves to New Jersey, to Newark or Jersey City or someplace else similar. The people in that area have a choice. They can try and get tickets to the Yankees or Mets (exceedingly scarce and exorbitantly priced), plus have to fight their way through traffic or transit into the city which could take forever. Or, they can go watch the new team closer to home, where prices are likely a little cheaper and more available just from having more on the market.

As more go, more will become fans, and the fanbase will grow from there.

I never said that. But, in another place (say, Baltimore), it could be possible.

But then in 20 years the park isn't so nice and new anymore, and everything starts over.

Why not stop the Yankees now so that team that want to move (or are created in later expansion) to those places have a better chance?

Again, that is a question of personal preference then what has a chance of success.

Yes, I am taking into account the amount of people, and I admit that if they had a stadium, big if, there would likely be a reasonable support in terms of tickets sales, but that wouldn't be because many people adopted them as their favorite team, it would just be because people want to root for the opponent or just see a baseball game. Not ideal at all. And TV ratings/contracts once again would be bad.

Yeah, some may adopt them as their second team, but people aren't giving up the Mets/Yanks as their favorite team because the Rays moved to town, at least not enough people. That's just not realistic.

The team that would move there doesn't have a chance of competing with the current teams. You are not stopping the Yanks at all. Their revenue would still be the highest in baseball. The only way to make things somewhat equal is to have more revenue sharing. With the Drungo approach, there would still be the have's and have not's, and the Yanks, Mets, Sox, and Dodgers will be in the former.

No, it's a question of what has the better chance of accomplishing the goals we've set here. This isn't a political discussion, who cares if it's a socialistic approach? And if you do care, complain about the other leagues approaches. Maybe if you guys get your way, the O's will end up moving to NY, LA, or Boston 20 years from now, doubt it would still be your personal preference at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am taking into account the amount of people, and I admit that if they had a stadium, big if, there would likely be a reasonable support in terms of tickets sales, but that wouldn't be because many people adopted them as their favorite team, it would just be because people want to root for the opponent or just see a baseball game. Not ideal at all. And TV ratings/contracts once again would be bad.

Yeah, some may adopt them as their second team, but people aren't giving up the Mets/Yanks as their favorite team because the Rays moved to town, at least not enough people. That's just not realistic.

Why not? It's happening around here with the Nationals, with fewer people and a more transient population. I'm still not sold that they will survive long-term, but you would see the same effect in New York.

The team that would move there doesn't have a chance of competing with the current teams. You are not stopping the Yanks at all. Their revenue would still be the highest in baseball. The only way to make things somewhat equal is to have more revenue sharing. With the Drungo approach, there would still be the have's and have not's, and the Yanks, Mets, Sox, and Dodgers will be in the former.

Same as above: allegiances will change. The more fans that support the new team(s), the more that will switch completely and the more of an effect it will have on the other teams in the region.

The Yankees have an advantage in history, but that will always be there either way. Between the history factor, and the emigration factor of people moving all around the country, there will always be a large number of Yankees and Red Sox fans throughout the country. That doesn't mean that things can't change in their own base market.

No, it's a question of what has the better chance of accomplishing the goals we've set here. This isn't a political discussion, who cares if it's a socialistic approach? And if you do care, complain about the other leagues approaches. Maybe if you guys get your way, the O's will end up moving to NY, LA, or Boston 20 years from now, doubt it would still be your personal preference at that point.

It isn't political, it's economic.

The Orioles are far more likely to move because of the present system then in a fully open system. The margin for error is tiny.

In either the socialistic or capitalistic ways, that margin is much bigger because there are more teams at a similar level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Orioles are far more likely to move because of the present system then in a fully open system. The margin for error is tiny.

The O's are not more likely to move under this current system. The current system in place is filled with relocation restrictions. It would be impossible to find a suitable market to upgrade to. Most of the major markets are taken. The remaining large ones are Charlotte, Portland, Orlando, and Las Vegas. Then you have your weak sisters like San Antonio and Norfolk. Now, far far off in the future when population levels change dramatically . . . maybe they move, but not in the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? It's happening around here with the Nationals, with fewer people and a more transient population. I'm still not sold that they will survive long-term, but you would see the same effect in New York.

Same as above: allegiances will change. The more fans that support the new team(s), the more that will switch completely and the more of an effect it will have on the other teams in the region.

The Yankees have an advantage in history, but that will always be there either way. Between the history factor, and the emigration factor of people moving all around the country, there will always be a large number of Yankees and Red Sox fans throughout the country. That doesn't mean that things can't change in their own base market.

It isn't political, it's economic.

The Orioles are far more likely to move because of the present system then in a fully open system. The margin for error is tiny.

In either the socialistic or capitalistic ways, that margin is much bigger because there are more teams at a similar level.

The Nat's/O's situation is very different than the Yanks/Mets/Rays potential situation. Two different cities/markets vs one market. An area that wanted a new team and was willing to build them a new stadium vs an area that doesn't seem to want a new team, or finance a new stadium. A market that did not totally adopt the O's as their team vs a market that has totally adopted the Mets/Yanks. A strugging franchise vs two thriving franchises in terms of trying to keep their current fans. And the Nats competing with a mid tier team in terms of finances vs the Rays competing with two revenue giants.

So no, not the same effect in NY due to the obvious differences. I haven't seen any compelling reasons why a lot of people in that area would switch favorite teams. I've seen reasons why people would go to some games just to see a baseball game, and that's if there's a stadium to go see them, but that's about it.

And it makes more sense economically to do what I've been talking about.

Where would the O's move under the current system? I don't see them moving either way, but if places like NYC/LA/Boston are as appealing as you suggest, it would make more sense to move there than to move to a smaller city. And of course this isn't a debate between the current system and the fully open system(at least not the back and forth we are having), this is one between the open system and the increased revenue sharing/cap/floor system. The O's would be much more likely to move under the former system.

I really don't think the fully open system would provide the results you and Drungo think it will. And again, if it does, it will take much longer to work itself out, while the impact of the other approach is immediate and effective in making things more even. With the fully open system, for reasons I've already stated, I don't see any teams moving to the NYC area, Boston area, Chicago area, or LA area, at least not anytime soon, and if they do, I don't see it working out well.

I also still don't get why freeing up the minors would help things out, I think it would help the rich teams. I think I need more of an explanation of how that would work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly see a bunch of Yanks/Mets fans switching their allegiances to the Royals/Marlins/Rays?

Some would. But most of their fanbase, at least initially, would be from people who aren't really big fans of either the Mets or the Yanks. There are plenty of them in NYC. Probably more people than are in the entire metropolitan areas of many major league teams.

Don't discount the effect of being the new, cool thing. Their marketing campaign would be all over catchphrases like "alternative" and "different" and "who wants to pay $150 a person to see new Yankee Stadium?" and "we're the new Brooklyn Dodgers" or the "we're the new New York Giants". A niche market in NYC might be bigger than a real market in KC or Seattle or Phoenix.

Why would they do that?

People would root for the new team for the reason they root for any team - if and when they play good baseball. A team like the Marlins would get a huge influx of cash from moving to New Jersey. They would go from a $20M payroll to $50M, $60M, $80M overnight. They'd be big bidders on major free agents.

Are you seriously telling me that no one would come watch a team in NJ if they had a lineup that included not only Hanley Ramirez, but also several high profile free agents like Mark Teixiera? I think they'd immediately draw 30k+ a game, and if they started winning they'd sell out. And when they played the Yanks and Mets and Red Sox (and probably Phillies) they'd definitely sell out every single game no matter if they were a 50-win team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some would. But most of their fanbase, at least initially, would be from people who aren't really big fans of either the Mets or the Yanks. There are plenty of them in NYC. Probably more people than are in the entire metropolitan areas of many major league teams.

Don't discount the effect of being the new, cool thing. Their marketing campaign would be all over catchphrases like "alternative" and "different" and "who wants to pay $150 a person to see new Yankee Stadium?" and "we're the new Brooklyn Dodgers" or the "we're the new New York Giants". A niche market in NYC might be bigger than a real market in KC or Seattle or Phoenix.

People would root for the new team for the reason they root for any team - if and when they play good baseball. A team like the Marlins would get a huge influx of cash from moving to New Jersey. They would go from a $20M payroll to $50M, $60M, $80M overnight. They'd be big bidders on major free agents.

Are you seriously telling me that no one would come watch a team in NJ if they had a lineup that included not only Hanley Ramirez, but also several high profile free agents like Mark Teixiera? I think they'd immediately draw 30k+ a game, and if they started winning they'd sell out. And when they played the Yanks and Mets and Red Sox (and probably Phillies) they'd definitely sell out every single game no matter if they were a 50-win team.

Yeah, the Rays would be the new cool thing, sorry, but I'm not buying the cool part of that.

Not many are looking for the new New York Giants or Dodgers, the Mets were the replacement for them, if this was 1962 or so, that would work.

I don't think there are more baseball fans that are looking for a favorite team in that area than people in whole metropolitan areas. Not even close. There are baseball fans there that don't root for the Yanks/Mets, but that's because they are from somewhere else and they root for a team from there. They may adopt the Rays as their second team, but once again, it's not ideal to move somewhere when you won't have many fans who adopt you as their favorite team.

Have you been reading what I've been saying? No, I am not saying no one would come see the Marlins or Rays if they were in Jersey or NYC, didn't say that at all. I'm saying they'd get ok attendance if they had a stadium to play in, once again big if that's being assumed here, but that attendance would mostly come from people who want to watch the opponent and people who just want to see a game, but don't want to spend the money for the other local teams, or have trouble getting tickets. They wouldn't get many people who rooted for them as their favorite team. And the TV ratings would be bad. The reasons for people going to those games instead of the Yanks/Mets games don't hold up for TV watching.

But ok, lets say an owner decides to go there and buid his own stadium despite these potential problems. Does that really hurt the Yanks and Mets much? That's the whole point of this right, to even things out more, well the Yanks and Mets would still easily make more than this other NYC team and many other teams. They'd still sell out consistently, and still have tremendous tv revenue. Then there would still be plenty of teams out there that spend less than half of what the Yanks do. So I guess if the objective is to make things a little more balanced, and take a long time to accomplish that, then great. The alternative balances things out much more, and does is quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...