The W
Views: 98298684
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.8.14 0752
The W - Baseball - My responsed to Tom Glavine
This thread has 21 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1468 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (25 total)
mountinman44
Sujuk








Since: 8.5.02
From: San Diego, CA

Since last post: 1187 days
Last activity: 1033 days
Y!:
#1 Posted on
The union fears a luxury tax along those lines when combined with increased revenue sharing would act as a cap because it would drain large amounts of money from high-revenue teams. Players, not wanting a tax at all, reluctantly proposed one with a much higher threshold and a much lower rate.
"We made an offer to try to rein in the Yankees and maybe one or two others," Glavine said. "Instead, they want to affect six or seven others immediately, and maybe six or seven more on the periphery. That's a salary cap."

Uh, no it isn’t, Tom… a cap would be $80 million per team and no one passes it… the luxury tax allows teams to go over a cap but pay money to the league so the lower franchises can still be competitive… see the NBA about luxury taxes… see the NFL for a hard salary cap… see the difference??? Even this simple fan can... oh yeah, but Don Fehr says the fans don't know...




Rest in Peace, Chick.
Promote this thread!
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 107 days
Last activity: 30 days
#2 Posted on
I don't understand why the players are so against the luxury tax. Sure, it could discourage teams from the Yankees from spending quite so much. But I think it is likely the Yankees will go ahead and go over and pay the luxury tax. That will leave more money for the smaller market teams to spend on THEIR players. It seems that they are looking out for only the big-star big-contract players, but ignoring the middle-of-the-road OK starters that will not be bought up by the Yankees, Braves, etc. and will actually have to stay at the smaller market team.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on
Exactly... look at the Mavericks. Cuban's one of the only owners willing to pay the tax, so he'll spend as much as he needs to build a winner. And yet, he still hasn't gotten to the Finals. A luxury tax doesn't kill player salaries--they'll still increase. It just forces owners who don't want to spend the money spend more responsibly.

However, I do feel there should be a salary floor. Teams should have a chance to be competitive without worrying about an owner not wanting to spend money. And if you don't want to invest, say, $50M in a team's salaries, get out of the game.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on
I'm sure if there was a luxury tax some players would get screwed by it. Except for the Yankees, there aren't that many teams with payrolls outside the average that say, "We want Jason Giambi, let's give him $20 million." If you add the tax to that, say the Mariners wanted to pay Player X $7 million, but they were over the tax threshold. The proposed tax I saw was 50%, so you would be, in effect, paying $10.5 million for a $7 million a year player. That would be enough to make me offer less, if I was M's management, meaning the teams competing for the player along with me could offer less as well.

I think there should be some sort of tax or cap, but I don't think the players thinking is out of line on this at all.

(edited by JayJayDean on 16.8.02 1621)
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on
Well, the funny thing is that now they've seemed to accept the luxury tax and the big issue is where it'll start. Owners want somewhere over $100M, players say it starts at $130M. I'm thinking the players have a point here... the owner's cap would screw players in general, whereas the union cap only screws teams like the Yanks, and Steinbrenner's probably willing to pay it to win.
SerWolfe
Landjager








Since: 11.1.02
From: st louis

Since last post: 4149 days
Last activity: 4149 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
A minimum salary cap of 45m or so... and a max of 120m would be nice..... but that will never happen.

I wouldn't mind seeing them set the luxury tax bar at 100 mil. Then the yankees have to fork over some money to get the big name talent... and that would leave some money for the lesser teams to pick up some needed talent down the stretch. 130m would only hit the yankees and maybe 1 or 2 other teams... i want the top 5 or 6 hit at least. Maybe thats just me though.



I've torn myself apart.... and tried to figure out why... but the only answer i was ever given... that really fits..... is the fact... that women are crazy.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#7 Posted on
I love how Rangers owner Tom Hicks is now saying that the owners are fed up with the players and want to bring back talk of a hard salary cap.

Hey Hicks! Maybe you should've thought of this before you decided to pay one guy $25 million a year.



I was born in a manger, like that other guy. You know, he wore a hat?
SerWolfe
Landjager








Since: 11.1.02
From: st louis

Since last post: 4149 days
Last activity: 4149 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
The problem is.... he was trying to build a contender. If he didn't pay that much without there being a salary cap... then he wouldn't have gotten the player. With a salary cap he still might not get the player... but the teams wont have to fork out as much money.

The small market teams dont fork out the money... because they cant... and they go nowhere.

I remember the radio announcing that if the playoffs started now... only 2 of the teams would not be in the top 10 in payroll. The cardinals are one of them.. and i believe the twins?

I want to see the smaller market teams given a chance.



I've torn myself apart.... and tried to figure out why... but the only answer i was ever given... that really fits..... is the fact... that women are crazy.
BobHollySTILLRules
Bockwurst








Since: 3.1.02
From: C-Bus, Ohio

Since last post: 4320 days
Last activity: 4320 days
#9 Posted on
The Cardinals aren't in the top 10 in salary!? I find that hard to believe.



I am a 21-time Wiener of the Day. Unfortunately, all of my reigns happened during house shows, including 5 in the past week, and are not officialy recoginzed.

"BobHollySTILLRules STILL rules!" -SmooveK, finally letting the world know what a select few have known all along. That I do, indeed, rule.

Bengals, Playoffs, 2002.

DON'T BELIEVE IT!

*I* want to be the right one!

Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 26 days
#10 Posted on
Allow me to add my voice to those who feel that a salary cap/luxury tax should be accompanied by a salary floor. Just my opinion, of course, but I believe that MLB's current revenue structure makes it too easy for owners to skimp on payroll, put a lower-quality team on the field, and be compensated for lost attendence revenues by sharing in the profits of those owners who are making a genuine effort to win.

Please also allow me to debunk what is IMHO one of the biggest myths regarding Major League Baseball today (since this was mentioned in more than one post above, I feel justified that I may do this and still be on topic). Large market teams do not have an advantage on the field over small market teams, unfair or otherwise. I know, that goes against almost everything your hear and read regarding the current state of MLB. But stop and think: if teams from the country's largest markets have such a huge advantage, then how come:

-- No team from Chicago has been to the World Series since the 1950's?

-- No team from Chicago has been World Champion since Honus Wagner was still an active player?

-- The Los Angeles Dodgers haven't been to the World Series since the 1980's?

-- The New York Mets have won a grand total of TWO World Championships (while appearing in all of FOUR World Series') since their inception forty years ago?

Please forgive me if this point has already been made in a prior thread. Please also understand that I am not saying that MLB's revenue structure is not in need of improvement. But IMHO the empirical evidence is overwhelming. The myth that small market teams cannot compete and win in MLB is nothing short of folly.



Patiently waiting to be Stratusfied.
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 107 days
Last activity: 30 days
#11 Posted on
To disprove the myth, you must also provide examples of small market teams winning it all, not just examples of big market teams who haven't won a championship recently. It seems that now the only time a small market team wins it all now is when the owner just decides to spend until he gets his championship, and then dismantles the team into nothing once the goal is achieved.
SerWolfe
Landjager








Since: 11.1.02
From: st louis

Since last post: 4149 days
Last activity: 4149 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
I cannot find it... but i heard it during our baseball show thats played on KMOX in the area. They had some CPA i believe on there who was talking about what they could do financially to fix baseball... and that statement came up. i believe the cardinals are still not in the top ten.

(edited by SerWolfe on 18.8.02 1852)


Screw the strike date! Go Cardinals!
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#13 Posted on
I think Peter Gammons put it best.....the players' union is basically striking to preserve the Yankees' payroll.



I was born in a manger, like that other guy. You know, he wore a hat?
Gugs
Bierwurst








Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 454 days
Last activity: 8 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on
The following announcement has not been paid for because it's free.

Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I will thank Downtown Bookie for NOT mentioning Boston, and thehn proceed to mention Boston.

The Sox are 3rd highest in payroll, I think. How come they haven't won a series in 83 seasons? (It'll be 84 next Friday) Oh, shut up. I stop writing columns just to get rid of you, so you come back and haunt me here? That's it! Tomorrow I write! (Hide the children) Shut up!



The preceding announcement was not paid for because it was free.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by gugs
    Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I will thank Downtown Bookie for NOT mentioning Boston, and thehn proceed to mention Boston.

    The Sox are 3rd highest in payroll, I think. How come they haven't won a series in 83 seasons? (It'll be 84 next Friday) Oh, shut up. I stop writing columns just to get rid of you, so you come back and haunt me here? That's it! Tomorrow I write! (Hide the children) Shut up!



Well, at least the shiny new management had the good sense this year to stop signing bad players to big contracts, then just eat the existing bad deals. Hell, we traded for Darren Oliver and WAIVED him for the honor of not having Carl Everett around... and we still won. Garces, well, at least he had some good years recently. Seattle must love being our bitches in regards to transactions... first the Slocumb deal, and now they take Offerman off our hands? Thanks, guys! Have fun getting beaten up by your division while we pick on Tampa Bay, Baltimore, and Toronto.
mountinman44
Sujuk








Since: 8.5.02
From: San Diego, CA

Since last post: 1187 days
Last activity: 1033 days
Y!:
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by ges7184
    To disprove the myth, you must also provide examples of small market teams winning it all, not just examples of big market teams who haven't won a championship recently. It seems that now the only time a small market team wins it all now is when the owner just decides to spend until he gets his championship, and then dismantles the team into nothing once the goal is achieved.


The Padres in 1998 is a perfect example of this. John Moores put up a $50 million payroll in 1998 just to get to the World Series, then had to dismantle the team because he lost almost $20 million that season.



Rest in Peace, Chick.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
#17 Posted on
Jeeze, $50 million is below the floor that someone was talking about earlier as a minimum. It's not THAT much to spend... its just the Pads are currently getting screwed by a lot of deals the city made with the Chargers (for example, the Chargers make $$$ on concession sales at Qualcommm even when the Padres are playing)



Your a retarted looser.
Chico Santana
Boudin rouge








Since: 2.7.02
From: Jaaaaamacia Mon, No Problem.

Since last post: 3990 days
Last activity: 3988 days
#18 Posted on

    The Sox are 3rd highest in payroll, I think. How come they haven't won a series in 83 seasons? (It'll be 84 next Friday)


The reasons:
Tom Yawkey: didn't spend money as an owner.
Racism: The Red Sox were one of the last teams to sign Black and Latin American players. They would sign bad white players and thumb their nose up at the League, up until the seventies.
Bad players/big contracts:drjayphd hit the nail right on the head. They would sign people like Matt Young who was a 5th starter at best, Jack Clark when he was past his prime.
Bad Trades: Babe Ruth, Jeff Bagwell, Brady Anderson, I could go on and on but I'm aboot to cry.



"SAL BANDINI, WANNA WRESTLE?"
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on

    Originally posted by Chico Santana

      The Sox are 3rd highest in payroll, I think. How come they haven't won a series in 83 seasons? (It'll be 84 next Friday)


    The reasons:
    Tom Yawkey: didn't spend money as an owner.
    Racism: The Red Sox were one of the last teams to sign Black and Latin American players. They would sign bad white players and thumb their nose up at the League, up until the seventies.
    Bad players/big contracts:drjayphd hit the nail right on the head. They would sign people like Matt Young who was a 5th starter at best, Jack Clark when he was past his prime.
    Bad Trades: Babe Ruth, Jeff Bagwell, Brady Anderson, I could go on and on but I'm aboot to cry.



The reason it's been 83 years and not 16 years is because John McNamara didn't put in Dave Fucking Stapleton to play first base in the 10th inning of Game 6 of the '86 Series. End of story.
mountinman44
Sujuk








Since: 8.5.02
From: San Diego, CA

Since last post: 1187 days
Last activity: 1033 days
Y!:
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    Jeeze, $50 million is below the floor that someone was talking about earlier as a minimum. It's not THAT much to spend... its just the Pads are currently getting screwed by a lot of deals the city made with the Chargers (for example, the Chargers make $$$ on concession sales at Qualcommm even when the Padres are playing)


I have to say I did like what John Moores said in yesterday's SD Union-Tribune. He's willing to shut the game down for a year to get the right deal, and he's got 10 other owners that are there with him. Maybe some of Bud's minions don't have any balls, but John Moores does.



Rest in Peace, Chick.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: 99 Games Left for the Murph
Next thread: Meet the Mets, Greet the Mets, Come on Everbody Beat the Mets
Previous thread: Dodgers pitching rotation
(1468 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
He has hit 6 HR and 20 RBI in the last month and hit 25 HR in the 2001 season. He's not exactly a slugging machine, but he's a billion percent better than Redmond.
- Merc, Marlins-Dodgers Deal (2004)
Related threads: Mets vs. Braves, different topic than other - Smoltz - More...
The W - Baseball - My responsed to Tom GlavineRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.125 seconds.