VeeshanVault

Zamtuk wrote:

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2003 wrote: NEW YORK YANKEES $ 152,749,814

TAMPA BAY DEVIL RAYS $ 19,630,000

That is the reason the need a fucking salary cap. This is why MLB is so fucking shitty and disgusts me.

Same with the NHL, really.

I'm a fan of the Red Wings, but I'm not a fan of their team salary. =)

I'd like to see an incentive based pay scale for all professional athletes, really. This shit where they get paid $20,000,000 a year is just ridiculous.

Why couldn't they do something like this? (I'll use baseball as an example.)

25 Player Spots on Roster (This might not be accurate, just using it since it was mentioned above.)

13 Spots = Base Salary Level C (Low)
08 Spots = Base Salary Level B (Middle)
04 Spots = Base Salary Level A (High)

Each team is allowed to have a set amount of players in each salary level. This will still allow for competitive salaries for better players because if they are on a team that doesn't want to allocate an 'A' slot to them, they can always request to be traded or can sign with another team who is willing to make them an 'A' slot player.

That alone would go a long way to addressing the inflated salaries and ticket costs for all professional sporting events. However, to take it one step further an incentive based bonus system could be instituted.

For example, a batter on a baseball team might earn a bonus for each HR, 3B, 2B, and hit that they get. In addition they receive a bonus for being within a certain range of batting average. (.275-.295, .296-.305, .306-.315, etc.) Starting pitchers might get a bonus for each win, each strikeout, keeping ERA within a certain range ... there's a lot of details but I think if someone who knew more about the ins and outs of professional sports finance sat down and figured it out, they could make something work. This could be broken down for almost every stat in every sport.

A system like this would also (maybe?) make it more affordable for people to go to sporting events, since they wouldn't be paying $60 out of the $85 cost of a ticket to go to a players salary. Also, if a player was making $22m a year under this system, you'd know they were earning it!

I think it's a good idea anyway, but what do I know? =)

Made this it's own topic since it was getting buried. Feel free to contribute your ideas or comments or suggestions! I'm just curious if someone can see any flaws in this. (Besides the players who would take a major paycut, keke.)

I think this would suck and would tear teams apart.

I agree that salaries are way out of control and there should be some solution to keeping people from buying championships. The best way would honestly be to eliminate free agency entirely, with the only way out of a contract would be if the players were being mistreated.

I would think if it was strictly numbers that controlled the salary that players would be out for only themselves and would never take a walk if they could reach a pitch. They would swing for the fences instead of sacrificing etc. I would love to see teams get a standard pool of cash that increases with their wins. It would also be beneficial to have this pool increase with bonuses for fan attendance. Every player should have the same starting salary and go up accordingly if they are a starter or bench player. If free agency were eliminated, this would be an excellent system. With free agency, they should allow owners to give players perks that are performance related, yet that do not allow a player to go past a set major league maximum.

you cant eliminate free agency.

this is the united states. people have the right to make what the market bears for their expertise. the owners are just as much to blame for the escalation in player salaries. Steinbrenner gives $8 million / yr to Contreras who has never thrown a pitch in the major leagues. ARod gets $25 million.

I like your communist approach to baseball though Kil, meshes well with your politics

at any rate, the NFL has a salary cap that works and the league is competitive top to bottom for the most part. The problem is that the players dont have guaranteed contracts. Gene Upshaw is Tagliabue's "house negro" in that regard, because if any sport should have guaranteed contracts, it is the NFL.

i mean if you get injured and the team cuts you the next year, you dont get any money. that is crazy. if i got hurt at work in the process of doing my job, my company couldn't fire me if i was disabled as a result of doing my job. nor should it be able to.

so the best case is somewhere in between the NFL and MLB, where the players get increased financial security (they are the product afterall) but restrictions on the marketplace keep salaries in check, since owners cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the league.

there is a huge differenc in the revenue structure of the NFL and MLB though.

The NFL gets a massive amount of its money from the national TV contract. I'm sure almost all of us watch games that are broadcast as part of this contract. Local market contracts really are not that big of a piece of the revenue stream i dont think (speculation).

MLB is the reverse. Probably less than 10% of the games are televised nationally (not including TBS, WGN games because those are different) as part of the ESPN and Fox contracts. Those are the TV contracts that all teams benefit from. The local market TV contracts are where the big dollars are for baseball, and this is partly to do with the way the season is (162 games).

Take one guess which team has the most lucrative local market contract. The NY Yankees. The Braves are able to compete with the big market clubs because of the way their television deal is structured with TBS (which is part of the same company that the Braves are).

At any rate, the Yankees arent going to want to give any of their TV money to the Expos (whos local TV contract probably makes nothing).

Before you can address revenue sharing and salary caps in baseball, you have to figure out some way around the problem that a lot of the money comes from the local television contracts, and obviously the better TV market you are in, the larger the financial advantage you could potentially enjoy.

I don't really know much about the NHL's revenue so i can't really say how similar/different they are to MLB or the NFL.

Every league should really have a salary cap. Its a stupid notion to think that teams should be able to buy championships (hello yankees).

Take the NFL for instance. It holds the best all around competition between all teams bar none. Nothing even comes close to it. The NFL rules weekly ratings Sunday and Monday night, and there is no bigger event than the Super Bowl. Why? Well it partly has to do with the fact they play ONE game and not a fucking series, which I think ruins sports, but that is another discussion. People flock to football year after year for one single reason, this could be their year. Unless you live in Detroit or Cincy. Hell I mean look at last year, the fucking Browns went to the playoffs, much to my pleasure. Every Sunday people pack into sports bars or anywhere that can hold a tv and cold beer and chant like hell at their team. Regardless of who they like. I live in NC and every single game during that 1-15 season people were cheering and packed in the bars. This all indirectly relates to the salary cap.

When you have that cap, as relatively low as it is, it breeds much better competition and also as stats show, more revenue in the long run. Extra money to build better stadiums, do more for the community which most teams are known for. This is the main reason that NFL is the most popular sport ever. In a poll I read some time back (no I regrettably dont have the source) 65% of the people polled preferred football over any sport. Look at the figures, every single game is sold out, if not for the home team, for the away team that comes. You don't get that in any other sport.

I could go on another long rant about free agents, but I will leave it to two words: Corey Dillon.

MLB and NBA are lumped into the same category. The players are a bunch of money whoring pussies. I lost all interest in the NBA during that lockout and haven't looked back since. Same with MLB and the strike, I did however, get interested in McGwires HR race but then said fuck it all together with last years would be strike.

The reason I am afraid isn't the owners, it's the players. The owners, the businessmen of the sport know what is good for the league as a whole, except Steinbrenner. The ignorant ass players that coasted through their 1 year general classes in college don't know a goddamned thing about the business model. All they care about is money. They much rather have the chance to play big at Cleveland to get recruited to the Lakers to win a championship. It's almost like they have created their own draft system in the two sports. Play well enough here at the consistently .500 team and you could be drafted to play for a championship team. Sure, every year there will be one what the fuck team to make it in, and every year people look to them to shock the world, only to find out it won't happen. It can't happen, because the players are to damned greedy.

And that is the reason that the three biggest sports in the nation are in order, NFL, NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball. The latter two need no explanation on why they are up there.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I think this would suck and would tear teams apart.

I would think if it was strictly numbers that controlled the salary that players would be out for only themselves and would never take a walk if they could reach a pitch. They would swing for the fences instead of sacrificing etc.

It would tear them apart initally, but that's the idea. Spread the talent out. Send some of the NY Yankees to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Send some of the Detroit Red Wings to <insert small market NHL team that never does well here>.

As far as playing for themselves and not for the team, you would of course reward things such as sacrifice RBI, walks, etc. I just didn't mention that since it could get way too complicated way too fast for the scope of this discussion.

Free agency could still survive in this sort of salary structure as well. Let's say for example Sergei Federov of the *cough* Mighty Ducks has a bad season this year. If he were under a 1 year contract as an A-category player, the ducks might decide to resign him with the condition that he signs as a B-category player, so they can make room for a real forward. (keke) Federov of course scoffs at this since he thinks he is the greatest thing since sliced bread and decides to look around for a team which has an available a-category slot that they are willing to give him.

A salary cap would work just fine for baseball. I'm sure Pay-Rod (and the other big money shitheads) would bitch up a storm, but it is in the best interests of the game to have teams competitive throughout the leagues.

The NFL has a salary cap, and the top players make plenty of money. Every team has a chance.

The salary cap was the best thing to happen to the NFL. It is great not knowing what team is going to be the winner each year. It let the Tampas and St. Louis's have a chance.

The only thing I would change about the salary cap is not to count players who are on the injured reserve list against it. Having your 7 million dollar player go down early really sucks and you should be able to sign another player or two to help in the short term. Having that same player have his career ended really blows. If you still owe him millions over 4 years then it shouldn't count against you. This could be abused but I think it could work if you got impartial doctors to make determinations.

yeah very good point about injuries and the cap.

The fucked up part is that NFL contracts aren't 100% guaranteed, so that season ending injury (even for a minor thing like a torn muscle) can fuck a young player's life up, while they are burdening their team with cap numbers.

But still, the NFL is the blueprint that every other league should follow, from a business perspective. NFL games are still selling out, merchandise is still moving off the shelves, and the recession doesn't appear to have hurt it very much. Very solid management by Tagliabue and co., and the understanding that both the players and the owners will always try to do best for themselves, so it's our job to protect the game.

I gotta disagree with the pro-guarenteed contract sentiment. You need to have some form of fear to hang over players heads for them to compete hard for their jobs. Football has that now, because if players dont win their job, they are cut, and dont get paid (btw, the signing bonus is paid, regardless, so they have in fact some form a portion of their salary that is guarenteed). Look at the other extreme, basketball, where everyone is on guarenteed contracts. Do you think a lot of those guys are really working hard for their roster spots? Any bench warmers in that league slightly overpaid?

Baseball seriously needs a salary cap. Hockey needs one, too, but they also need lower salaries across the board - they just dont have the TV revenue that the other sports have. I worry about the future of the coolest game on ice: they have a tough negotiation ahead of them.

I'm not a huge fan of the whole revenue sharing idea to be honest as I'm just not a fan of giving money earned to someone else that doesn't. Capping it needs to be done, however. The Yankees have cohesion as a team and that's really why I feel they have been successful for a good chunk of time but, as I was advised, they are able to plug inevitable holes that occur far easier my tossing cash at it.

I think a cap system will work well for baseball as it has football. Both sports have a funny way of getting "surprise" players. It's not unusual to hear a football player was a 7th round draft pick but kicked ass in camp and got the job. Baseball players can "come out of left field" as well. It makes for an exciting drafting process. Basketball and even hockey stink in this effect because you can usually see the star players by the time they hit the draft. Some are better than anticipated, but if you're a first rounder, you're going to be a top guy. Hell, basketball used to have an effective salary cap, but that went completely by the wayside with the pushing of signing bonuses and the like. But even so, it's not as if the smaller cities are hurting in basketball when it comes to wins.

Fuck it, I have no answers

Revenue sharing is an issue that I am of 2 minds of:
- 1st I agree a bit with Chidoro in that I am not a fan of taking money away from a team that earns it and giving it to a team that doesn't earn it.
- 2nd my opposing side come from that fact that things like local TV coverage and advertising contracts are worth more, depending on geographical accidents (i.e. in the NHL the advertising value of the New York Rangers is far greater than say the Pittsburgh Penguins) and does not guarantee that the team will be run in a manner that is financially responsible or good for the league. All the NY Rangers have done in the last couple years is drive up the average NHL salary and fail to make the post season...

I see "great villains in sports salaries in the New York teams. What the Yankees have done in baseball, the Rangers have done in hockey (with much lesser success rates). You don't need a competent front office any more, you just need the biggest bankroll in the league, and this forces other teams to A) try and keep up or B) get left in the dust and eventually go under. I am not saying New York is the only city whose franchises are to blame (with the NHL it was St Louis under GM Ron Caron that broke it open, with teams like the Rangers, Detroit Red Wings and Philedlephia Flyers following suit).

The real question to me is where does it end? The NHLPA is posturing to force a lockout next season (they're not staisfied with an average player salary of 1.8 million/year in a sport that doesn't have a national US network television contract), yet not too long ago baseball owners were nailed with collusion in controlling salaries. Where is the line? I know team owners in the past of all the sports raped the talents of their athletes, which contributes to some of the mindset of today's guys to get all they can but shit... according to the audited financial reports on many of the teams they are losing shitloads of money.

The NHL gets consistently shitty ratings, that's why there's no national coverage. I'd be surprised if the NHLPA had any grounds to follow through w/ this threatened lockout. I men, aside from the few teams that have long time fan bases like Montreal, Boston, NY, Detroit, etc noone gives a shit about the sport; at least in this country.

Devils vs Ducks, jesus, who cared? Fucking boring ass team against a no-name team. They can't win it seems. Either you open up the rink size to allow for fast paced stylized hockey as in Europe but noone can score ala the yawnfest that is soccer, or shrink every rink to Boston size so players can beat the shit out of each other but the players are all tied up so nothing happens.

Seroiusly, I have ZERO sympathy for a sports franchise that can't make money. Some states use tax dollars to bring in the teams. The owners don't even need to come up w/ the starting costs sometimes (waves to the fucks that wanted to do that w/ the Nets). How fucking hard is it to make money owning a franchise. People are so stupid sometimes, that's the only thing I can think of. No too long ago, the person that was in charge of OTB reported losses. I mean, fiscally, it's fucking IMPOSSIBLE to lose money running an OTB yet this yutz did it.

Just assume fans are getting jerked in towns w/ franchises that lose money. Eventually, franchises will either drop out or people will keep buying tickets. I haven't purchased a full price ticket for any top-flight game in ages because of this shit. I'm either comp'd or watching a minor league game (Trenton Titans play in a nifty little arena).

I thought this was an interesting article. Has some good ideas/comments about the NHL. (especially #9 imo!)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/967918.asp

Tying up players trying to do anything between the blue lines has always made for shitty hockey watching. There's no se plays any more, nothing looks organized out there. I definitely think that obstruction kills the entertainment value a ton.

Players salaries and threats of stoppage assist in the kill as well. I'm going to a Devils-Pathers game tonight, I'm in the second deck about halfway up, $52 each. The wife and I are comped so it doesn't matter to us but that's ridiculous. There's no mass transit to the stadium, so that's another $10 to park. 16 oz buds are $5.50 each. Concession idiots are hawking garbage on HUGE sticks the entire fucking game, getting in the way the entire fucking time. It's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. But a lot of people feel that way. I'd be interested in seeing the capacity numbers for tonight's game involving the Stanley Cup Champions. There's no way it's going to be over 12k. At least 1/3rd of the stadium will be empty is my prediction. Who can afford it?

And seriously, who cares about these damn expansion teams. Definitely consolidate the league again and tighten the pool of talent.

The guy who wrote that is a genius. Bring all that shit on, the sport is on the cusp of croaking

Edit: couldn't have been any more than 8k there last night, maybe even only 6k

I got into hockey in the late 80's and early 90's, when my uncle took me to a couple Penguins games. The games were electric, fast paced, and fucking FUN.

It's no fun watching a bunch of fags hook and trip each other.

From a fan's perspective, I don't think they need to get as deep as some of the suggestions in Zoocow's link. The NHL merely needds to do 2 things:

-call the stick and obstruction infractions, as these are what don't allow the skilled players to excel
- go back to the full 2 minute powerplay. Make the penalties more devastating to teams and that style of play will be discouraged.

One thing I notice no one ever talking about anymore is fighting in the NHL, which used to be a hot topic. Its interesting that the decline in fighting has led to the more numerous stick/obstruction infractions, as well as eliminating a part of the game that for all its bad press, used to get people excited.

I do honestly fail to find the appeal in a sport like baseball, compared to hockey, and one thing the NHL has done right, in my opinion, is keep the games moving. You rarely see a 3hr hockey game, outside multi-overtimes in the playoffs... I have rarely seen a baseball game end in less than 3 1/2 in the last 15 years.

Back to the monetary issues, I was watching an interview with a local sportswriter on TV, talking about the NHLPA and the NHL owners deadlock and he had some pretty interesting things to say.

Most NHL club presidents, GMs and high mucky mucks are all ex-players, not necessarily business people. Some of the owners are, but they tend to leave the running of the clubs to thier "hockey people". Contrast that to the NHLPA which has player input but is solely spoken for by business lawyers (in the form of player agents). His contention was that while a Phil Esposito or Glen Sather or Pat Quinn may know hockey players and talent, they aren't as in tune with the business aspect of the sport and they desperately need to be. Thus they make bad business decisions, lose money for their franchise and in essence hurt the sport. The writer's assertion is that many of the NHL's woes could be solved by doing as the players did when they were getting screwed: importing some people with real business savvy, not hockey sense, and letting them run the teams. The NHL management seems to let ego and desire to win supercede patience, discipline and business sense on a daily basis... and looking at clubs like the NY Rangers, the St Louis Blues, Detroit, and to a limited extent teams like Philedelphia and Toronto, I have a hard time arguing with that.