Jump to content

Longgone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,014

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Longgone

  1. Longgone
    That can be based on organizational talent and skill, not simply the ability to outspend everyone else.
  2. Longgone
    Can you imagine being a fan of an NBA or NFL team, and other teams can just simply, grossly outspend yours, year after year, rarely being able to sign a decent free agent or resign your draft picks? That's funny.
  3. Longgone
    More parity=good, less parity=bad. Is there an ideal ceiling where relative parity is close enough to be acceptable, I'm sure. Would the parity be acceptable without the CBT, or some similar mechanism, absolutely not. So, I'd rather keep the CBT ceiling low and find other means to bring players salaries up to a fair level, and one of the better ways to do that is to create a level playing field so that all teams can fairly compete, when you just keep putting the richer clubs farther ahead in their ability to outspend the other teams, you are just exacerbating the problem, not solving it.
  4. Longgone
    Sure, it's a thing, but where you're wrong is claiming it's a good thing, like spiraling inflation is a good thing. Sure, the players want it, they want their cake, and eat it too. It's not conducive to a healthy, competitive league, which in the long run, is not good for the players, either
  5. Longgone
    They are a single entity, competing in a capitalist system for our entertainment dollar, and trying very hard to screw it up.
  6. Longgone
    Communism! These are franchises of a single entity. I can't let you continue to abuse terms. Capitalism and Socialism are two distinct economic systems. Are taxes socialistic? No. Regulations? No. Social welfare programs? Absolutely not. Government funded Infrastructure programs? No. Price protection and subsidies? No. All of these are almost universal features within capitalist systems throughout history. Making something more equitable is not Socialism. Government funding is not, in itself, Socialism.
  7. Longgone
    This is an assumption based on an erroneous perception, as I said, it's simple math.
  8. Longgone
    If you were starting a league today, would you design it so that some of your franchisees had 20 times the competitive resources as others? That would be unfair and absurd. The health of any league implies each team will have relatively equal opportunities to compete. The situation with MLB is historic, and the CBT deals with it in an oblique manner, but simply put the lower the ceiling/higher the penalties the greater the parity, and yes, parity is good. Also, if you were starting a league, you would probably have a hard cap, which constrains salaries, so I'm not sure why you find a soft cap in MLB so offensive.
  9. Longgone
    This doesn't address any of the issues. The players need to be fairly compensated, at around 50% of revenues. But, competitive parity is a huge issue for the league, and the CBT is effective at correcting some of the disparity. There are many ways to ensure players get fairly compensated, and parity issues are also addressed. Encouraging greater disparity is counterproductive.
  10. Longgone
    I'd like you to try to explain how that would be good for the league.
  11. Longgone
    Yes, and there is no way spiraling salaries set by the richest clubs is good for the league, and the competitive health of the league trumps maximizing player salaries every time. And yes, as currently constructed, there will always be a resource disparity, but it would be malfeasance not to narrow the gap as much as possible.
  12. Longgone
    Is there a point in all this? Until there is greater competitive parity, there is going to be a great disparity in payrolls, and thus teams that struggle to compete and continue to rebuild, which you erroneously call "tanking". This is not good for the overall health of the league.
  13. Longgone
    Yes, and this is what the owners logically want to avoid; the market being set by those few clubs with grossly disparate resources. No one in their right mind would want that to happen, and it would be bad for the league.
  14. Longgone
    No matter how many times you repeat this, it simply isn't true. The disparity is simple math, and the restrained spending is only on the richest clubs, and checks them from dominating the free agent market, but still allows them to easily outspend everyone else.
  15. Longgone
    Baseball is unique in that there is a large competitive disparity between the haves and the have nots. The CBT does act like a soft cap, and this is a good thing. Other leagues successfully have hard caps. The richer teams can well afford to exceed the cap and pay the penalties, thereby narrowing the gap. Small and mid market teams will likely never reach the ceiling anyway. So the CBT is really only restraining the richest clubs from dominating the free agent market. The lower the ceiling and stiffer the penalties the narrower the resource gap, the higher the ceiling, the greater the disparity. This isn't rocket science. There just needs to be a ceiling that creates enough balance.
  16. Longgone
    This is such a tired, shallow banality. Teams will spend when they can be competitive, until then they will rebuild. And there's nothing wrong with spending on scouting, player development and infrastructure, rather than payroll.
  17. Longgone
    And the players want the owners to fix the players problems. That's why it's a negotiation.
  18. Longgone
    They both need to negotiate, rather than nibbling at the edges of their offers. Nobody is going to force the other side to cave by holding out, that is a loser strategy. Deal with each others issues and negotiate.
  19. Longgone
    It's more like the KBB is $30k, and MLB says we'll give you $8, and the PA says we won't take less than $250k.
  20. Longgone
    Who cares! BACON!!!
  21. Longgone
    Hence the desire for a lower ceiling and stiffer penalties. Having the richest clubs not dominate the free agency market also opens opportunities for smaller markets to spend.
  22. Longgone
    Yes, they need to deaden the ball. Nothing extreme to severely hinder offense, just go back to the balls they were using a few years ago.
  23. Longgone
    Yes, and keeping the ceiling low has little to do with spending. It's a soft cap that the richer clubs can easily exceed, paying a tax that goes to the smaller markets, enhancing their competitiveness, and improving overall parity. Greater parity helps the smaller markets avoid the constant tear down and rebuild caused by having the deck stacked against you year after year.
  24. Longgone
    An artificial floor makes no sense, unless you believe the myth that owners don't care about winning, only profit, so they have to be forced to spend. No, the problem is Baseball has a very fundamental parity issue that can't be denied. Teams will only avoid the cycle of tear down and rebuild when the competitive disparity is narrowed. No other league has ever required a floor, because teams tend to max out salaries when parity exists, and all teams have similar resources for team building. A hard cap that is low enough to be sustainable by the smaller markets will never be agreed upon by the players. One high enough to maintain the players at a fair share of revenues can't happen unless there is massive revenue sharing and the owners won't agree to that. So you're kind of stuck with the CBT, where you only approach parity with a lower ceiling and higher penalties, so you can see where Ilitch is coming from. A higher ceiling and lesser penalties just perpetrates the disparity.
  25. Longgone
    I don't believe any of those were obstacles. The negotiated issue was how much lead time for rule changes. Owners wanted the current year reduced to 45 days.
×
×
  • Create New...