2012 MLB Regular Season Running Thread

No, oop, here was the exchange:

I was talking about revenue sharing and you hit me back with the luxury tax. The luxury tax is not what anybody in baseball is talking about when they refer to revenue sharing.

It is quite humorous that you can't just admit that you didn't know revenue sharing existed in this form, but again, it was my pleasure to educate you.

 

If it was easy as buying a World Series the Yankees would win it every year. You can assume more money increases a team's chances but statistically you can find just as many big spenders that miss the playoffs as those who make it.

Besides, just ask MankyJimy, it wasn't all the big money talent that led the Yankees to their latest titles and playoff appearances, it was Jetes. Everyone else was moot.

 

It"s not about world series, it's about consistently being able to contend. The playoffs are a crapshoot, getting to them not as much.

 

Sorry, not going to lie to make you feel better. Look at the exchange again. It fits exactly how I described it. I showed you what I had found because I was having trouble turning up an article with the full process.

I admit when somebody proves me wrong, as buckweaver did a few pages back on the rules regarding at-bats. But you keep twisting that exchange because you know my overall point is correct.

 

Exactly. Yes, the Yankees have problems now. They had them in 2008. They bought their way out of it and pocketed a World Series in the deal.

 

"I was having trouble turning up an article with the full process" = "I did not know the process existed"

If you were having trouble "turning up an article with the full process," you would not have posted an article about the luxury tax, because the luxury tax is not even a part of the process of revenue sharing. So if you were looking for that revenue sharing information, you never would have landed on luxury tax in the first place.

You thought luxury tax was revenue sharing. You were proved wrong. Accept it and move on.

EDIT: Also, it took me approximately two minutes to find the link I posted back then about the "full process" of revenue sharing. Maybe you're using Bing or something, but there really isn't a reason you would have had trouble finding the "full process" if you really were looking for revenue sharing.

 

That's why I had that sentence about statistically and playoffs, yada, yada. Moreover I can't believe I've been pulled into another stupid salary cap argument. I've got nothing new to add that hasn't been said 100 times.

I like how you're making a cause/effect statement about one year out of the past four where the variables have been constant (Yankees highest payroll) and the results have not.

 

Not my clearest moment ever, but it happened exactly as I described. Not sure why I had such trouble finding it. That was a while ago. I knew the process existed, but hadn't seen the number you were throwing out there. I just offered up an example of what I turned up quickly hoping you could clarify, which I appreciate.

Believe me or not. That's up to you. You are absolutely entitled to cling to your incorrect assumptions. It doesn't change the overall point. Even with the revenue sharing as it is, having more money is a significant factor in the competition on the field in MLB. There is no question about that. The only questions are how much impact does it have and should baseball do something about it? You're clinging to your false gotcha moment rather than deal with the actual issue, which makes me think you know I'm right.

 

I don't even know what your argument is, so I don't know if you're right. I don't think you know what your point is anymore other than "Goddammit I loved Willie Stargell." Is it an advantage to have money? Sure. Always has been. That's why the Yankees have been good for a century.

Is it an advantage to have money in the NFL? Hell yeah. That's why the owners fought tooth and nail against revenue sharing that would have helped the Cincinnatis and Buffalos and Oaklands.

This year we have the distinct possibility that the top five, maybe six payrolls in baseball are going to be home for the playoffs, and Oakland and Tampa Bay are going to be playing. We also have massive revenue growth, both overall and within the "distressed" markets. I'd say baseball is in pretty good shape, and the teams that aren't, it's because they're stupid and cheap more than anything else.

 

The argument is simple. I just summed it up for you, but apparently you don't want to deal with it. Having more money makes a significant impact on the competitiveness of the teams on the field in MLB. A one-year sample doesn't change that and it is disingenuous at best to suggest otherwise. It's like using today's weather in an argument about global warming.

Can you argue how much of an impact money has on the field? Absolutely. Can you make the argument that we shouldn't care? Sure. If all you care about is baseball's financial stability, then yes, the game is just fine. If you care about having the most level playing field, not so much. If you care about fans of every team believing there is a level playing field, the issue is larger. I think the average fan of the Royals or Pirates or Twins thinks their team doesn't get a fair shake and I do think that can be bad for the game. Just because we enjoy the game as it is doesn't mean it can't be better.

And you still haven't addressed the point about rich owners in small markets. Do you think it is fair to ask them to lose money to be competitive? If you are going to point to their personal wealth as a way to overcome the inequities in revenues, it follow that you do believe it is fair to ask these businessmen to choose to lose money every year. That just isn't realistic.

The argument that it is an advantage to have more money in the NFL is silly. Maybe it is a slight edge, but nowhere near what it is in baseball. The NFL has far more balanced revenue sharing. Part of the reason for that is owners who are willing to give up more for the overall health of the sport. A larger part of that is that so much of the league's revenue comes from national TV contracts. It also helps that the NFL has had a much weaker player's union for decades.

The gap from the top spending teams in the NFL to the bottom is MUCH smaller in the NFL than MLB, especially when you consider that team payrolls are spread among a much larger group of players. I've posted those numbers here many times. Maybe I'll get around to it again later.

The argument is what it has always been. The NFL's financial system is much better in terms of creating a level playing field and the public perception of competitive balance MLB's and MLB would be better off with a salary floor, which will never happen without a cap.

 

I don't think it's possible to buy a World Series title. I think it is only possible to buy greater chances at getting to the World Series. Over time, of course, these greater chances increase the likelihood that you'll win one, but to point to a particular championship and say it was "bought" -- or to say that a given baseball team wouldn't have won a particular championship without some subset of recently acquired players -- is beyond far-fetched.

I've done some similar noodling in the past, but this guy at Baseball Prospectus does a good job with it:

 

Who is asking rich owners to lose money? The A's made $40 million last year. That money goes into their pockets. If they put $20 million of it into payroll, imagine how good they'd be this year. The Twins, the Royals, the Pirates, the Marlins ... they all make money. They could all devote another $20 million minimum to salaries and have much better teams. The idea that they are being asked to lose money to be competitive is pure fiction. And that is just on a year-to-year operating income basis. When you factor in the increases in franchise value that all teams enjoy, the question is completely ridiculous. (For example: If you pay $25,000 in mortgage each year and your home goes up $50,000 in value, are you "losing money"?)

I would also say that any owner who has bought in in the last 20 years gives up any right to bitch about salaries. So I guess the Twins still have a gripe, but as for anyone else, save it. This is the game and they knew it when they bought.

The impact of the NFL's revenue disparity is far greater than you seem to think. I guess that's because it doesn't negatively affect your favorite team. But cash is a huge factor in NFL contracts -- if you have it, you can pay up front and get a lot more flexibility around the cap. The Redskins' and Cowboys' actual money outlay per year is much larger than the Bills' and Bengals'.

But, if the Yankees winning one of the last 11 world championships is evidence of a stacked deck, then so be it. However, they are going to be stuck for a long time with Tex at first and A-Rod at third and Jeter at short and Sabathia on the mound as those players' skills erode, so they're going to have a very tough time being competitive. Those guys are going to play and they aren't going to sign others to take their place. What they did is exactly what the 49ers did in 1994 when they signed Deion Sanders and Rickey Jackson and Gary Plummer and blew their salary cap all to hell for the next five years.