I'm pulling the salary card.

[HollywoodLeo]

And now for my main point. I have become increasingly annoyed at teams who play the salary card. All teams have money to spend, some pocket it(Marlins), and some spend it all (Red Sox). Others just have an exorbitant amount of money altogether(Yankees). What annoys me is people bickering over how one team is better than another, and people pull out the Salary Card, and whammo! a stupid argument ensues.

....

But anyway, back to the salary card. If a team tanks for 3-5 years, builds up their farm, and becomes successful, that's just good moves running a team. But a team in a large market spending their money to win is theivery and cheating. In my opinion, anyone who connects Free Agency to Lost Allegiance to Less Fans to Less Money to Worse Baseball has to seriously go **** themselves. Funny how when someone lands a huge free agent and their in a small market, it's their team putting money back, but when a large market team does it, everyone pulls out the Salary Card.

Nobody ever says a team can't win unless they spend money. People just say it's easier for teams who can afford to have humongous payrolls.

Every team has an equal ability to draft the right players and develop them, so whether or not a team does or doesn't do that right is moot to this debate.

Where salary and the ability to have a huge one comes into play is free agency.

And this has a two fold effect.

1) When the big names hit the free agent market more often than not they're going to be signed by the bigger markets.

and

2) when those players the smaller markets develop become elligable for free agency, unless they have loyalty to the team that developed them more often than not they're going to split. (this is assuming the small market team doesn't anticipate this and trade him for value before that becomes an issue...or lock him up for a smaller contract than he'd get in FA...which the player isn't always willing to do.)

The counter-arguments to this, as alluded to in the quoted text, is to point out that

1) Smaller markets do make big acquisitions from time to time
2) The Yankees don't win the world series every year, and haven't even done so since 2000
and 3) "Maybe the owners in the small markets shouldn't pocket so much money"

Well, these arguments are flawed as such.

1) True a small market will make big acquisitions from time to time. They don't exactly have penny sized payrolls either. (well, maybe the Marlins) The difference between the Yankees and the Padres (as an example) is that the Yankees can afford to dish out another huge contract to make up for a previous mistake, wheras the Padres are forced to stick with the mistake and hope to God they turn it around. (*cough* Phil Nevin *cough* Ryan Klesko *cough* )

2) This is an irrelevant argument for 2 reasons.
- even when you're spending a helluva lot of money you still have to give it to the right people. The Mets and Dodgers have both shown that it is possible to spend a lot of money and still lose. This is a testiment to bad general managing not taking proper advantage to resources other teams don't have.
- The Yankees, with their huge payroll, are always in the playoff hunt and when was the last time they missed the playoffs? They may not always win the world series, but thanks to having the world's largest payroll, no cap on how much they're able to spend, and a GM that knows how to use that money they're always in the hunt.

3) This is the most flawed argument of them all. Some people seem to not have an understanding of the concept of income vs outcome.
Like it or not baseball is a business, especially in the minds of team owners. And, like in all businesses, the owner of that business would prefer to maintain a profit.
Here is where the problem lies, because your average team doesn't bring in half as much money as the Yankees, or to a lesser degree, the Red Sox.

"Well, why don't they market their team as well as Steinbrenner does?" you ask.

Haha, the Yankees are rich in tradition and that will never change. You're smoking some serious crack if you think any team can reach the popularity levels of the Yankees.

Sure the Padres can develop a World Series team and that would bring in more fans and more revenue, but they still wouldn't match up anywhere near the levels of the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, or even the Mets because sports are funny like that in that people attach themselves to one team and the popularity of teams only fluxuates so much with bandwagoners.

All I ask for is a more level playing field so that if the Padres enter an offseason where they'd really like to acquire a big bat for their line up and Carlos Lee is the only one available they have a reasonable shot in hell at signing the guy because other teams aren't able to throw a contract at him for more than he's worth just because they can.
Or so that when players they develop reach free agency the Padres aren't S.O.L. if all the guy wants is the largest contract someone will offer him.

Ok, now fire away.

[Kingdom]

I wish Atlanta would shell out money to keep a pen intact.

The royals should spend money on real players, if anyone was ever interested in playing for KC.

And a level playing field doesn't guarantee anything. If we had a level playing field, everyone could offer Barry Zito the same deal but he's still going to choose one of the New York teams or one of the LA teams. For example.

[HollywoodLeo]

And a level playing field doesn't guarantee anything. If we had a level playing field, everyone could offer Barry Zito the same deal but he's still going to choose one of the New York teams or one of the LA teams. For example.

Why? Becuase they're LA or New York?

If someone wants to go to a specific location then they'll go to that specific location. But I don't see any logical reason why LA and New York would still have the free agency advantage if the salary playing field were even.

I supose the Yankees would have a bit of an advantage still because some people would want to be a part of "Yankee lore" but there's no getting rid of that, and to be perfectly honest I don't have a problem with that anyways.

But, more often than not, the player is looking for the biggest contract. And if every team has pretty much equal ability to offer him that big contract then he won't neccesarily go to New York or LA anyways.

[Dry1313]

Well, you blew my argument out of proportion and deathly analized it, so I guess I must do the same.

In terms of offering a level playing field, go right ahead. Next time the vote comes along and gets reversed, ***** and moan at your owner. Although it's entertainment, it's still a business and every time salary cap comes along during the CBA, it's almost unanimously turned down. Some teams don't have that money to spend and if they do, they'd rather pocket it. Which is why some teams spend years in cellars.

And you're 100000% correct about the Yankees. No one can match their status or $$, yet the "big" free agent acquisitions of late were guys like Javy Vazquez, Jaret Wright, and Carl Pavano. Do you really think any competent teams wanted them? Maybe it's just me, but I doubt the free agent acquisition of any of these guys is title changing. Consistently teams lose out on the big FA's. I guess the last big FA acquisitions have gone to the Mets. But they may have wanted to play for them anyway, not to mention they can get more $.

And you seem to forget if a local, a la Lebron James, comes to your team, explodes on the scene, and hels your team rake in the $$ you won't be complaining. That's why guys like Matt Bush get drafted.

Anyway, your points are excellent, but you also need to realize any team can evade them, and Revenue Sharing isn't made up either.

[HollywoodLeo]

- I won't complain to my owner as John Moores is at the forefront of those wanting to change the financial landscape of baseball...so much so that he's not that popular amongst some Padre fans.

- Just because it gets turned down by owners who don't want to piss off the all-powerful player's association doesn't mean it makes any less sense.

- You are right about the Yankees recent FA aquisitions...like I said, you still have to spend it right. Maybe that would explain why the Yankees struggle to stay in 1st these days.
The Mets got a but ton of FAs and look at how they're doing as of late.

You're right about developing local talent as that's what a small market team HAS to do. But even then an unbalanced salary system can screw them. What do you think the perverbial "LeBron James" is going to do when it comes time for him to hit the free agent market if all he wants is the $$$? He's sure not going to stay with the team that can't afford to pay him 15-20 mil a year.
(They do have a bit more of an advantage in this scenario on the grounds that the guy might have a sense of loyalty, and if they don't think he will they can at least trade him before it becomes an issue....something they shouldn't have to do I might add.)

Revenue Sharing....nice idea, not really a complete fix, Steinbrenner can afford the fine.

[Dry1313]

I completely understandand and agree. You would think a Yankee fan would be appalled at a salary cap, the gap in money which is an excuse all teams have. But I'd like to see the field leveled, just so all the owners who pocket money get no money anyway. It's a simple cycle in baseball, one you can't disagree with: You get the players, you get the fans. You get the fans, you get the revenue. But if you need revenue to get players, how do teams have success? The only way is for team to build new stadiums, run gimmicks, and recieve sponsors. This is why large markets have better luck. They have more access to sponsors, and that gives them cash for players.

So it comes down to the owner. If he's willing to shell out $$ from his own pocket to help advertise his team, and acquire players, it could either go very well (Steinbrenner), or very poorly (Daniel Snyder). Just like with players, you can't do anything to change your owner. Except not go to games or put money into their sponsors. But that becomes a small boycott, which does nothing. It's impossible for one fan to overthrow the baseball regime based on earning revenue. It comes down to how much $$ your owner can spend on his own.

And that is how a team comes out on paper. But, baseball is played on grass, and that is why a team of relative unknown reserves and fringe major leaguers can put together a championship season. I'm all for proactive action. But pulling that salary card is stupid. None of us can do anything about how much money our team spends, unless we organize a mass boycott. And is it really worth the time? So if you break it down to basics, pulling the salary card is like when the Mets get sweeped by the Red Sox, the Mets fans saying "Well we won in '86." It's just stupid and leads to arguments.

I'm not saying the issue isn't valid. I'm just saying it's discouraging to tak about something we can't affect.

[GiantsFanatic]

one thing i like about steinbrenner is that he will spend the money to help his team win/give them a chance, only critism i have is that he does not need an allstar at every single position! thats like playing madden with the all-madden team! whats the point of playing then.

you got owners who are billionaires, but yet wont spend shit on there teams, especially the owner of the kansas city royals who's the CEO of WALMART the largest retail corporation in america, yet he wont spend his money!

[HollywoodLeo]

Mad respect, Dry, for counter-arguing (sort of) with an open mind on this.
I understand what you're saying in regards to it kinda being pointless to argue about it...and to that degree I agree as well. I guess I just like to debate. That, combined with that I misread your original remarks on the subject to mean the usual yankee fan standpoint on the subject, which it appears it is not from what i'm reading.

The only semi-rebuttle i'll give to your post is that, from what (admittingly little) knowledge I have of the recently imposed Debt Service Rule owners can't freely dip into their own pockets as much as they used to be able.

In regards to Steinbrenner, I really don't have disdain towards him. He does what the system allows him to do, more power to him.
If I was in Steinbrenner's shoes i'd do the same.

[Dry1313]

My blog was late at night. I kind of lost my train of thought. But the Debt Service Rule sounds like another rule the MLB Owners are trying to put in so they can screw over teams and fans.

As far as this debate, it's sort of stupid to take the "Yankee" side, because they're wrong. As you pretty easily point out, theres a ton of flaws. My view of baseball is not that of some psycho purist, or of one of these hyper reform junkies. But I think baseball should either go all out for the Cap, or just let it ride like it used to. As for all of these stupid rules meant to "help" lower market teams, baseball needs new analysts. It takes team less then a few months to figure out how to exploit a rule to their benefit, a la building a new Yankee Stadium :coughBullshitcough:.

[HollywoodLeo]

-
You're right about developing local talent as that's what a small market team HAS to do. But even then an unbalanced salary system can screw them. What do you think the perverbial "LeBron James" is going to do when it comes time for him to hit the free agent market if all he wants is the $$$? He's sure not going to stay with the team that can't afford to pay him 15-20 mil a year.

I reckon he'll take his talents to South Beach.

[love_that_reefer]

But not because a team couldn't afford him

[GiantsFanatic]

And actually LeBron took less money, than what he would have gotten if he had gone somewhere else.

[HollywoodLeo]

I knew the LeBron scenario didn't compare (partly due to the fact that his league has a cap...) I just thought it was kind of funny since his name was brought up as an example.

[Slyder]

And actually LeBron took less money, than what he would have gotten if he had gone somewhere else.

What he ended up was practically the same money when you consider no income tax in Florida. When you take out what Ohio would have taken they end up being similiar.

[realmofotalk]

What he ended up was practically the same money when you consider no income tax in Florida. When you take out what Ohio would have taken they end up being similiar.

That's true, but I've always thought avoiding income taxes was an added bonus instead of the main reason Scottie Pippen...er, I mean, LeBron James signed with Miami. Besides, Shaq did leave Orlando for Los Angeles, despite California being the worst state there is for any taxes.