I’ve pretty much stopped watching

[Tony-OH]

1 minute ago, vab said:

Is that really a thing? I mean by that logic there probably wouldn't even be college sports since nobody stays there more than 4 years. I know it wouldn't effect my fandom if the Orioles were moving guys out like Tampa does if the team was consistently good. 

If you don't understand the difference between college sports and the pros, the I don't know what else to say. Both the A's and the Rays have done this for years, and neither draw well. I doubt Orioles fans overall would like their players being traded away as soon as they were arbitration eligible. 

 

[Tony-OH]

1 minute ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Even with Tampa trading their top talent as soon as those players get expensive, I think a new ballpark in a better location would improve attendance assuming the Rays remain competitive. 

I haven't driven by the Rays dome in a long time, but the way I remembered it is instead of having OPACY imagine the Orioles played in a crappy dome on Pulaski Highway in East Baltimore. 

I was there in 2019, and the traffic mid-week to get out of Tampa and to get there is not good. The stadium is absolutely awful. It was first time I've ever seen a game in a dome and hopefully the last. 

 

[orioles22]

51 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Salary cap does nothing to level the revenue gap.  Alabama and Clemson don't pay their players anything (at least legally) and they still win almost every game.  Put a harsh salary cap in place without revenue sharing or revenue constraints and the Yanks/Dodgers/Sox would still win more because they'd have gold-plated locker rooms and personal Lear jets and each player gets a free $20M mansion.

College isn't the same.

I sald like the NFL...I'd imagine the Cowboys have plenty of revenue streams...

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, orioles22 said:

College isn't the same.

I sald like the NFL...I'd imagine the Cowboys have plenty of revenue streams...

I can name Jax, Houston, Cincy,  jets, Giants, Philly, Atlanta and Carolina that have no shot at a Super Bowl next year. Another list I could give of teams that are mediocre with not much of a chance.

What the NFL has that MLB will never have is a player as important as a QB that can change a Franchise. If the Bengals go 5-12 next year but Burrows plays well fans can be encouraged by that. 

[SteveA]

12 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Even with Tampa trading their top talent as soon as those players get expensive, I think a new ballpark in a better location would improve attendance assuming the Rays remain competitive. 

I haven't driven by the Rays dome in a long time, but the way I remembered it is instead of having OPACY imagine the Orioles played in a crappy dome on Pulaski Highway in East Baltimore. 

The area has gotten a lot nicer in the past decade or so.  Just north of the stadium is an area with lots of restaurants, bars, etc that was nonexistent 20 years ago.   The stadium is still a piece of crap.

[orioles22]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

I can name Jax, Houston, Cincy,  jets, Giants, Philly, Atlanta and Carolina that have no shot at a Super Bowl next year. Another list I could give of teams that are mediocre with not much of a chance.

What the NFL has that MLB will never have is a player as important as a QB that can change a Franchise. If the Bengals go 5-12 next year but Burrows plays well fans can be encouraged by that. 

It's not because of money though.

Jacksonville was in the conference finals a couple of years ago. Atlanta was in the Super Bowl. Philadelphia won a Super Bowl. They all have the money to compete, at least.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

Just now, SteveA said:

The area has gotten a lot nicer in the past decade or so.  Just north of the stadium is an area with lots of restaurants, bars, etc that was nonexistent 20 years ago.   The stadium is still a piece of crap.

Thanks for the update. Gentrification might help a little, but that dome was out-of-date as soon as the Rays made their debut. 

[Moose Milligan]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

Let’s be clear: I still follow the team intensely.   I’m just not watching many of the games.   Great example the last two nights.   Had something going on in the early evening and by the time I checked the scores they were 13-0 and 9-0, respectively.   Why turn those on?   I guarantee you if they were winning or at least close I would have tuned in. 
 

Wasn’t singling you out, Froberto Alomar. I don’t think anyone here would question your loyalty and devotion. 

[Jammer7]

6 minutes ago, SteveA said:

The area has gotten a lot nicer in the past decade or so.  Just north of the stadium is an area with lots of restaurants, bars, etc that was nonexistent 20 years ago.   The stadium is still a piece of crap.

Yep, St. Pete has done a nice job revamping the downtown area. Stadium is crap. Traffic really depends on where you are trying to go. If you have a family, hard to stay after the game and party. Personally, when we have gone, we leave right after and head East toward Orlando. It is terrible inbound during the rush hours, especially when it rains. 

[eddie83]

51 minutes ago, orioles22 said:

It's not because of money though.

Jacksonville was in the conference finals a couple of years ago. Atlanta was in the Super Bowl. Philadelphia won a Super Bowl. They all have the money to compete, at least.

The Orioles don’t suck because they can’t spend money. They suck due to a lack of young talent on the big league team. 

[Mondo Trasho]

2 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Or MLB has to emulate the NFL and implement a salary cap and forced revenue sharing to give the smaller markets a chance to compete. Problem is I can't see the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc. agreeing to give up their golden goose. 

I know this has long been the "in vogue" thing to say, but it ignores the inherent advantages football has over baseball in maintaining some sort of competitive balance. The biggest one being that randomness is a bigger factor when you only play 16 (and now 17) games and you have a single elimination playoff tournament. 

The real impact of the salary cap in the NFL is guys in their mid to late 20s with marginal talent (relative to the rest of the league) end up unemployed and out of the NFL because their production can be replaced (or much of it anyway) by incoming college players at a much cheaper price tag. 

Even implementing a floor isn't going to help as all you'll get is rebuilding (or otherwise tanking) teams race to pick up the worst contract to eat up salary space while the rest of the team is ripped down to the studs. 

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know a salary cap is not a magic solution. 

[Riggodrill44]

I’ve been through the bad baseball before. 

It’s not the worst thing, it honestly frees up my evenings to do other things, I wouldn’t be doing if they were watchable.

[orioles22]

5 hours ago, eddie83 said:

The Orioles don’t suck because they can’t spend money. They suck due to a lack of young talent on the big league team. 

If they had some money, they could have bought some older talent to at least be competitive. I think it's safe to say the talent level would be a lot better with a payroll of $100 million or so. But more than that, the fact we are looking at trading our top players because we may not sign them is very depressing.

[GuidoSarducci]

5 hours ago, Mondo Trasho said:

I know this has long been the "in vogue" thing to say, but it ignores the inherent advantages football has over baseball in maintaining some sort of competitive balance. The biggest one being that randomness is a bigger factor when you only play 16 (and now 17) games and you have a single elimination playoff tournament. 

The real impact of the salary cap in the NFL is guys in their mid to late 20s with marginal talent (relative to the rest of the league) end up unemployed and out of the NFL because their production can be replaced (or much of it anyway) by incoming college players at a much cheaper price tag. 

Even implementing a floor isn't going to help as all you'll get is rebuilding (or otherwise tanking) teams race to pick up the worst contract to eat up salary space while the rest of the team is ripped down to the studs. 

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know a salary cap is not a magic solution. 

And this is different than baseball, how?  

At least NFL teams don't control your rights for 7-10 years after they draft you.  So if you can produce while still young, you have a good shot at landing a life-altering contract after your rookie deal is up in 3-4 years.   

The difference in football is you don't have these mega contracts for players into their 30s long past their shelf life.  The NFL has a better grasp on which players are likely to decline so they are smarter with their money.  The flip side is the younger players reach FA sooner.

[Mondo Trasho]

11 hours ago, GuidoSarducci said:

And this is different than baseball, how?  

At least NFL teams don't control your rights for 7-10 years after they draft you.  So if you can produce while still young, you have a good shot at landing a life-altering contract after your rookie deal is up in 3-4 years.   

The difference in football is you don't have these mega contracts for players into their 30s long past their shelf life.  The NFL has a better grasp on which players are likely to decline so they are smarter with their money.  The flip side is the younger players reach FA sooner.

With a salary cap, I don't think you see guys like Freddy Garcia pitching into his late 30s, or Kenny Rogers pitching in his 40s, or BJ Surhoff playing until 40. That might be a good thing, or it might be a bad thing, I'm agnostic on that question. My only point is a salary cap is not what makes the NFL have more parity than the MLB (to the extent it does, because even that is debatable). Football has advantages that cannot be replicated in baseball.