Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from --The---Babe-1. Show --The---Babe-1's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good..... : Did you ever read in your history books about the existence of monopolies and oligopolies at the start of the 20th century and the anti-trust legislation that was drafted as a result of it. Congress reacted which made the playing field more level and fair for all Americans. A salary cap / floor would do the same for baseball or do you prefer a Yankee monopoly or an oligopoly consisting of a handful of teams?

    Posted by Your-Echo

    I know this is difficult for you to understand, piker, but there is a huge difference between criticizing revenues and the need for a salary floor/cap.

    Try to get your younger sister to help you out with this one.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    The salary caps in the NHL, NBA, and NFL were all the result of the disparity in franchise revenues and payrolls. The "haves" were ruining the parity of competition and action was taken which was necessary. No need to start your insults routine. Will be bringing your bag of insults to today's game thread which will be monitored by BDC Dottie?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from --The---Babe-1. Show --The---Babe-1's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    The salary caps in the NHL, NBA, and NFL were all the result of the disparity in franchise revenues and payrolls. The "haves" were ruining the parity of competition and action was taken which was necessary. No need to start your insults routine. Will be bringing your bag of insults to today's game thread which will be monitored by BDC Dottie?

    Posted by Your-Echo

    And yet MLB has had more varied champions than the NFL and the NBA since their respective caps.

    But getting back to your statement that the Yanks should be criticized for their revenues, do you think they should try to make less money?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    The salary caps in the NHL, NBA, and NFL were all the result of the disparity in franchise revenues and payrolls. The "haves" were ruining the parity of competition and action was taken which was necessary. No need to start your insults routine. Will be bringing your bag of insults to today's game thread which will be monitored by BDC Dottie?
    Posted by Your-Echo
    You are wrong sir.

    The NFL has not had a Major disparity of revenues. The vast majority of revenues in football come from merchandising and the national TV contracts. That revenue is shared equally among all teams. Unlike baseball, local media is a very small percentage of the revenue pie. Salary caps were established to maintain a level of insured profitability for every owner even they run their business poorly. 

    Now in their sport this alone does not create the supposed parity that exists though it might be a contributing factor. The other factors are the draft and artificially tweaking regular season results through scheduling, the worst teams getting the easiest schedules outside of intra-division play, the best the toughest. 

    And in spite of all of this the best managed teams maintain consistent post season performance for years on years. The Pats, Steelers, Colts, Eagles are just some of the examples. In the NFL all have but the cap exists to protect bad football operations from becoming bad business operations.

    The NBA's cap hasn't created financial stability for the owners or parity. A few teams dominate in 7 to 10 year blocks, with an occasional team showing up for 4-5 spirts like the Celtics and Pistons before them. The sports competitive balance is determined by having a few key superstars because rosters only dress 12 and play about 8. The NBA will lock out their players and unlike the NFL where owners are simply trying to improve profits, they do have a problem. Bad franchises are losing their shirts. A new CBA will not change the fact that a few key superstars will always be the difference between winning and losing in basketball, it will only insure losing what cause the owners to lose their shirts and causing league contraction. That lock out will be long. 

    The NHL's cap was not established because of competitive balance issues but rather the sport had out spent revenue and was a TV ratings flop on the national level in the US. The sport found itself with payrolls it could not maintain once they lost their ESPN TV deal. There was  little to no concern about competitive parity when the NHL locked out the players. The end result has been that parity looks like it always did in the NHL and the owners are now trying to work around the cap by writing insanely long contracts where a couple of million a year is spread in the last 5-7 years when they know they player will no longer be effective.

    The end results of the four sports as measured by eventual champions does not support the argument that they have created greater parity. Have's and have nots exist in every sport and each has perennial winners and perennial losers.

    And a look back to the days when the sports had no need for a CBA because they were allowed to enforce versions of the resrve clause is telling. In the absence of FA the NYY from 1950-1964 (15 years) the NYY won the AL 13 times and the WS 8 times. The Packers owned the 60's, our Celtics emassed 11 of their championships from the late 50's until 69. From 1950 to the mid 70's the Candians won the Cup 16 times.

    Don't be fooled, caps aren't about parity on the field, they are about parity on the balance sheet. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from --The---Babe-1. Show --The---Babe-1's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good..... : You are wrong sir. The NFL has not had a Major disparity of revenues. The vast majority of revenues in football come from merchandising and the national TV contracts. That revenue is shared equally among all teams. Unlike baseball, local media is a very small percentage of the revenue pie. Salary caps were established to maintain a level of insured profitability for every owner even they run their business poorly.  Now in their sport this alone does not create the supposed parity that exists though it might be a contributing factor. The other factors are the draft and artificially tweaking regular season results through scheduling, the worst teams getting the easiest schedules outside of intra-division play, the best the toughest.  And in spite of all of this the best managed teams maintain consistent post season performance for years on years. The Pats, Steelers, Colts, Eagles are just some of the examples. In the NFL all have but the cap exists to protect bad football operations from becoming bad business operations. The NBA 's cap hasn't created financial stability for the owners or parity. A few teams dominate in 7 to 10 year blocks, with an occasional team showing up for 4-5 spirts like the Celtics and Pistons before them. The sports competitive balance is determined by having a few key superstars because rosters only dress 12 and play about 8. The NBA will lock out their players and unlike the NFL where owners are simply trying to improve profits, they do have a problem. Bad franchises are losing their shirts. A new CBA will not change the fact that a few key superstars will always be the difference between winning and losing in basketball, it will only insure losing what cause the owners to lose their shirts and causing league contraction. That lock out will be long.  The NHL 's cap was not established because of competitive balance issues but rather the sport had out spent revenue and was a TV ratings flop on the national level in the US. The sport found itself with payrolls it could not maintain once they lost their ESPN TV deal. There was  little to no concern about competitive parity when the NHL locked out the players. The end result has been that parity looks like it always did in the NHL and the owners are now trying to work around the cap by writing insanely long contracts where a couple of million a year is spread in the last 5-7 years when they know they player will no longer be effective. The end results of the four sports as measured by eventual champions does not support the argument that they have created greater parity. Have's and have nots exist in every sport and each has perennial winners and perennial losers. And a look back to the days when the sports had no need for a CBA because they were allowed to enforce versions of the resrve clause is telling. In the absence of FA the NYY from 1950-1964 (15 years) the NYY won the AL 13 times and the WS 8 times. The Packers owned the 60's, our Celtics emassed 11 of their championships from the late 50's until 69. From 1950 to the mid 70's the Candians won the Cup 16 times. Don't be fooled, caps aren't about parity on the field, they are about parity on the balance sheet. 

    Posted by fivekatz

    Excellent post 5K

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share