Play.it Usa Forum

Jeremy wrote: Mah, nell'NFL il salary cap mi sembra funzionare benissimo anche perché lì non ci sono proprietari che vanno "al risparmio"; mi chiedo cosa impedisca di esportare questo modello in MLB.

rene' wrote: Rispondo ad entrambi: dubito che qualcosa di serio verrà fatto, a meno che gli Yankees improvvisamente non vincano per 3 anni di fila. A quel punto, nell'off-season fra 2011 e 2012 sarà il momenti di rinegoziare il CBA e qualcosa potrebbe saltare fuori. Dubito però altrimenti...

Inoltre l'MLBPA si oppone strenuamente all'introduzione, così come si oppone all'hard slotting.

Dreamer wrote: All'inizio pensavo che il problema dovesse presentarsi solo se la franchigia incriminata avesse vinto a mani basse. Ma poi ho pensato che questi discorsi sono indipendenti dalle vittorie.

Cos'è l'hard slotting?

Jeremy wrote: Mah, nell'NFL il salary cap mi sembra funzionare benissimo anche perché lì non ci sono proprietari che vanno "al risparmio"; mi chiedo cosa impedisca di esportare questo modello in MLB.

joesox wrote: Jeremy, nella NFL i proprietari non vanno al risparmio perchè....The NFL cap was first set in 1994, and it was $34.6 million. It has been increased every year since, and is now at $116 million. That amount represents 63 percent of the defined gross revenues of the league over the course of the year divided by the 32 teams in the league. There is also a salary floor - a minimum amount that teams must spend. That currently is at $98.8 million, which is 85.2 percent of the cap. That floor will be increased by 1.2 percent each year until it reaches 90 percent in 2012.

I proprietari del baseball - per tendenza - piangono il morto. Sempre.
Due anni fa quando hanno toccato 3 miliardi di dollari di entrate hanno sostenuto che tre quarti della squadre erano in rosso.
Solo con le imposizioni spenderebbero il dovuto.

Il primo discorso sarebbe quello di inserire un salary floor, ossia l’opposto del cap. Vuoi giocare coi bambini grandi? Allora devi tirare fuori i soldi.

Jeremy wrote: Cioè, non è che quelli dell'NFL siano tutti degli spendaccioni senza limiti come i famosi ricchi scemi dell'Italia pallonara però mi sembra che generalmente non manchi la volontà di spendere il giusto per rendere competitiva la propria squadra; che poi ci riesca ovviamente è un altro paio di maniche.

I'm not a Yankees fan and I can't envision a scenario in which I'd root for the team.

However, the strongest advocates of a salary cap, the ones ranting about salaries in light of the economy, are full of hot air. And something else, but the site nanny won't let me say it.

MLB's revenues have been exploding since 2003 and player salaries have simply not matched this increase in revenues. In 2003, players in baseball made 63% of league revenues. In 2008, that number appears to be 52% of league revenues, or less than any of the other major professional leagues in the US, which all have salary caps.

For decades, wonks, wags, and wigs have told us that player salaries drive upward ticket prices and that arguments about supply and demand are theoretical constructs for an imaginary world. But in the real world, during a time in which the player's slice of the pie has dropped tremendously (a $400 million loss of the pie in 2008 alone, relative to 2003), ticket prices have continued to gone up unabated. Just as expected, savings from limiting the salaries of those mean old players have been filtered directly into the pockets of owners. Owners who cry poverty and get welfare stadiums. Republicans talked about welfare queens 15 years ago, but it would take thousands of so-called queens driving around in taxpayer Cadillacs to match some of the true members of that category. Take Jeff Loria, who pockets revenue-sharing money and then turns around and gets an additional honeypot in the form an apparently imminent fancy-new stadium. If MLB owners were in charge of the TARP funds, the $700 billion would already be completely gone and the sycophantic media, ever-hungry for prestige, quotes, and free pastrami on rye, would blame it on pay raises for local janitorial staff.

Now, to the Yankees. I've been stalling on saying nice things about the team, but I guess I've got to bite the bullet and get it over with. The Yankees have a mindset that is good for baseball and the US would be better off if more companies possessed the Yankee mindset.

The Yankees do spend more money than other teams in MLB, but the differences would be less drastic if the payrolls of many teams had been rising up to the waves of new cash that have entered baseball in recent years. Going by the NFL formula, very generous considering the MLBPA is far more powerful an entity than any other union in sports, the payroll floor for 2009 would almost certainly be in the $100 million range. 58% of league revenue, as the players in NFL get, would be, in baseball, an average team payroll of a hair under $120 million. It's pretty clear that while the Yankees are outspending everyone comfortably, the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the payroll disparity as the Yankees do.

Now, what about the Yankee mindset? The Steinbrenners aren't anywhere near as rich or as liquid as some other owners in baseball such as Carl Pohlad of the Twins. The difference is that the Steinbrenners have always invested in their team, always striven to put the best product possible out on the field. The Yankees have certainly made some terrible trades, especially when King George was hands-on the most, but they were done with the motive of making the team better. Yes, the Yankees got a huge, undeserved payday from the locals for their stadium, like most teams in baseball did, but it's a mitigating factor that they're actually plowing those funds back into the on-field product. And the team never threatened to not compete until they got their sweet check. Perhaps a small difference, but I see it as a good bit more ethical than Kevin McClatchy demanding taxpayer moneys to help the Pirates compete and then turn around and use all the money to fund his failing media empire.

There's no such thing as a poor owner in baseball. Every team is more than capable of keeping their stars so long as their owner is willing to place winning ahead of profit. Check out Forbes' annual report entitled "The Business of Baseball". Here's a link to the 2007 report (based upon 2006 numbers).

Salary caps are not the answer and I don’t understand why we want to make the owners any wealthier than they already are. If they can’t spend the money they make, they’re going to keep it.

According to Forbes Magazine’s annual list of the 400 richest people in America, George Steinbrenner’s net worth ($1.3B) trails those of Carl Pohlad (Twins - $3.6B), Ted Lerner (Nationals - $3.5B), Mike Ilitch (Tigers - $1.6B), Drayton McLane (Astros - $1.6B) and Tom Hicks (Rangers - $1.4B).  And this doesn’t even include the major conglomerates like The Tribune Company (Cubs), Liberty Media (Braves), Rogers Communications (Blue Jays) and Nintendo (Mariners).

Jeremy wrote: Ah, ecco ammetto che non sapevo che ci fosse il salary floor in NFL.

Però continuo non capire il motivo per cui i proprietari del baseball hanno questa tendenza a piangere il morto, come dici tu. Cioè, non è che quelli dell'NFL siano tutti degli spendaccioni senza limiti come i famosi ricchi scemi dell'Italia pallonara però mi sembra che generalmente non manchi la volontà di spendere il giusto per rendere competitiva la propria squadra; che poi ci riesca ovviamente è un altro paio di maniche.

rene144 wrote: