Buc Ball Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 29 minutes ago, youngosu said: Ah, but they can afford it if they choose to a) spend a larger percentage of their revenue on players or b) lose money in the short term to be more competitive (they will get that money back when they sell the team). B) is a huge assumption. What’s your basis for that conclusion? Unsustainably spending millions isn’t a viable strategy, therefore it isn’t really an option. Representing it as such does your argument no favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 3 hours ago, youngosu said: So you pick the outlier to prove your point? But since you asked. MLB takes less playoff teams. If MLB took 6 playoff teams every year the Mariners would have had at least 4 playoff appearances since 2002 (2002, 2003, 2014, and 2016 off the top of my head). I picked the info you provided. If you want to refrain the argument that is a bad look. Baseball also has less teams and play 10x the number of games compared to football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 53 minutes ago, youngosu said: Ah, but they can afford it if they choose to a) spend a larger percentage of their revenue on players or b) lose money in the short term to be more competitive (they will get that money back when they sell the team). MLB owners are billionaires, sports teams are a luxury item and no one forced anyone to buy the Royals. If you bought them and don't want to spend enough to compete that is your choose but to claim the opportunity doesn't exist is false. And again, many MLB teams have plenty of revenue to spend far more than they spend right now without losing money. And I am mocked because my opinion is in the majority and I don't just accept a changing definition of parity as an explanation on why I am wrong. Sports parity has always meant that the talent is roughly equal. That has been the accepted definition for as long as I can remember and the only way to determine if talent is roughly equal is to compare how teams do year to year. And MLB despite payroll disparities has more parity than the NFL. The NFL is 3rd in parity (behind MLB and the NHL) by just about any measure that doesn't re-define parity. Equality of opportunity gives the illusion of parity, its not the reality. But for the sake of argument, if parity simply means equality of opportunity (through rules that force teams to spend a certain amount and cap other teams) than does the NBA have parity? NO THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. Let's say one of the poorer owners digs deeper into their funds to pay more than it makes sense to for a player, a richer owner is always going to be able to offer MORE for the same percentage of sacrifice. It's not one to one. Thus it's not parity. If I have billion dollars in revenue each year and you have a million, if you're willing to lose 10% to get a better player, someday I'm going to say "him, if I decide I can spend 10% to compete, I'm going to offer 100 million to your 100k. It's not even. The richer owner will always be able to win any bid. To the rest of your post, no your misusing parity to argue results. Right now every team drafts in the order they finished the season in, giving the worst teams access to the best players, and their is a hard salary cap for teams to always be able to have similar payrolls. The entire NFL is based around the talent of the team management to draft, scout, and coach. The NBA's issue is that it has a soft salary cap with many exceptions, also you can resign a player already on your team to the league maximum regardless of the cap. Also there is a luxury tax in the NBA so you can go over the cap. It's a broken system so payers can get paid more without relocating. It also makes it easier for super teams to appear. Also they have a lottery draft so the worst team might not even get the best player in the draft. In many ways it's the opposite of the NFL. MLB is an entirely different animal where you can base the whole of team management on analytics in a static system where if you are smart you can constantly develop competetive teams and replace players through scouting before you lose the really good ones to free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 @lancerman Quality post that might fly a little high over some heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 3 hours ago, Buc Ball said: B) is a huge assumption. What’s your basis for that conclusion? Unsustainably spending millions isn’t a viable strategy, therefore it isn’t really an option. Representing it as such does your argument no favours. Why not? Glass bought the Royals for 96 million dollars, their revenue in 2016 was 246 million dollars, they are valued at 351 million dollars. They have a payroll of around 110 million dollars in 2018. If you assume their revenue is still 246 million (its likely more) than their payroll is 45% of their revenue. If they increased that to 50% of revenue they'd be able to spend 123 million if you up that to 57.5% (which is what the average team spent in revenue for MLB payrolls in 2016) that would get you to 141.45 million and they can do that without leveraging any of their equity (255 million dollars) and still have 42.5% of their revenue to spend on other operations before they even begin to lose a dollar. The idea that they can't afford to spend more is nonsense. They choose not too. And I didn't say you unsustainably spend millions, losing money in the short term is a valid business strategy (taking on debt) when you are improving your product. You know the only actual different between the Royals and Bills? The NFL requires the Bills to spend more money. Either way, doesn't change the reality that the Royals have plenty of revenue to spend more than they choose to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 2 hours ago, lancerman said: NO THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. Let's say one of the poorer owners digs deeper into their funds to pay more than it makes sense to for a player, a richer owner is always going to be able to offer MORE for the same percentage of sacrifice. It's not one to one. Thus it's not parity. If I have billion dollars in revenue each year and you have a million, if you're willing to lose 10% to get a better player, someday I'm going to say "him, if I decide I can spend 10% to compete, I'm going to offer 100 million to your 100k. It's not even. The richer owner will always be able to win any bid. You ignore the luxury tax. As I said earlier, even the Yankees don't want to pay that. So in effect MLB has a salary cap making your argument moot. The Yankees can't just spend more because they will stop once they reach luxury tax territory. If you actually follow MLB you'd know that the luxury tax is essentially a salary cap. Its why so many free agents remain unsigned. There are plenty of players the Royals could outbid the Yankees for still available. Again, the Royals are making a choice, its not forced on them. MLB basically has a 197 million dollar cap in 2018. A few teams (I believe the Red Sox are the only team over the threshold right now) will exceed that but they will try their best not too. The Royals have plenty of revenue to stay competitive (payroll) wise with the vast majority of MLB but are making the choice to pay less. As I said above, the only difference between the Bills and Royals is that the NFL forces the Bills to spend a certain amount. MLB lets teams decide. The opportunity remains there rather you want to admit it or not. As for my use of parity, no I am using results to determine if parity exists. What else am I suppose to use? As for the rest of your post, I am not the one arguing that the NFL salary cap and draft is what means the NFL has parity so not sure why repeating the "equal opportunity" argument takes up 3 paragraphs. I grant that NFL teams have "equal opportunity" but in spite of that "equal opportunity" the league doesn't really have all that much parity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, youngosu said: Why not? Glass bought the Royals for 96 million dollars, their revenue in 2016 was 246 million dollars, they are valued at 351 million dollars. They have a payroll of around 110 million dollars in 2018. If you assume their revenue is still 246 million (its likely more) than their payroll is 45% of their revenue. If they increased that to 50% of revenue they'd be able to spend 123 million if you up that to 57.5% (which is what the average team spent in revenue for MLB payrolls in 2016) that would get you to 141.45 million and they can do that without leveraging any of their equity (255 million dollars) and still have 42.5% of their revenue to spend on other operations before they even begin to lose a dollar. The idea that they can't afford to spend more is nonsense. They choose not too. And I didn't say you unsustainably spend millions, losing money in the short term is a valid business strategy (taking on debt) when you are improving your product. You know the only actual different between the Royals and Bills? The NFL requires the Bills to spend more money. Either way, doesn't change the reality that the Royals have plenty of revenue to spend more than they choose to spend. Not sure where you are getting your facts and numbers from, but I found vastly different numbers than what you posted above https://www.statista.com/statistics/205721/team-payroll-of-the-kansas-city-royals/ 2016 payroll of $156M for players. I am not sure if that includes the additional expenses for medical and health care, insurance coverage for players/families (benefits). Unsure how much of that is MLB players vs the full scope of the farm system. Likely does not include coaches, travel expenses and infrastructure of the team in all the other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Issue Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 7 hours ago, youngosu said: How does that demonstrate parity in the league? Do you have a comparison to any other league? I figured I'd get lots of pushback, fans are invested in believing the NFL's lie about parity and no one likes to admit they bought into a lie. Comparisons to other leagues? Why aren't you making comparisons to the NFL "pre-parity rule changes" vs "post parity rule changes"? When people say the league has parity, they generally aren't speaking in terms of all sports. Just in terms of what the NFL used to be compared to what it is now. Take a look at the NFL from the 70's through the 90's. It was far more top heavy before the NFL made the conscious decision to even the playing field as much as they reasonably could. They also consider "parity" to simply mean your team stands a chance of competing. And if your team is down, all it takes is one good offseason for many teams to get back up. Or one bad offseason to knock a good team down. Back in the days before free agency, if you were a bad team, you tended to stay bad. You didnt have many big trades. You didnt have a free agency. You had the draft. And if you couldnt make that work for you, well... you stayed in the cellar. It's totally different now. Look at last season as a perfect example. Some of the hottest teams in the NFL last year were dead last or almost dead last in their divisions the prior season. The Rams, Jags, Vikes and Eagles were all pretty much poopy in 2016. They all have a good offseason, pull in the right people in a few key areas, and suddenly their fortunes have turned. Are there leagues with MORE parity? I guess. Is this an "all or nothing" argument where you "either have parity or you dont?" Of course not. It's like arguing you are either completely free or you arent free at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 1 minute ago, squire12 said: Not sure where you are getting your facts and numbers from, but I found vastly different numbers than what you posted above https://www.statista.com/statistics/205721/team-payroll-of-the-kansas-city-royals/ 2016 payroll of $156M for players. I am not sure if that includes the additional expenses for medical and health care, insurance coverage for players/families (benefits). Unsure how much of that is MLB players vs the full scope of the farm system. Likely does not include coaches, travel expenses and infrastructure of the team in all the other areas. The payroll I quoted was for 2018 not 2016. The Royals have cut payroll since winning the World Series. What they spent in 2016 proves my point, they can afford to spend more. They did in 2016 but aren't in 2018. Its a business decision, not an inability to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, Non-Issue said: Comparisons to other leagues? Why aren't you making comparisons to the NFL "pre-parity rule changes" vs "post parity rule changes"? When people say the league has parity, they generally aren't speaking in terms of all sports. Just in terms of what the NFL used to be compared to what it is now. Take a look at the NFL from the 70's through the 90's. It was far more top heavy before the NFL made the conscious decision to even the playing field as much as they reasonably could. They also consider "parity" to simply mean your team stands a chance of competing. And if your team is down, all it takes is one good offseason for many teams to get back up. Or one bad offseason to knock a good team down. Back in the days before free agency, if you were a bad team, you tended to stay bad. You didnt have many big trades. You didnt have a free agency. You had the draft. And if you couldnt make that work for you, well... you stayed in the cellar. It's totally different now. Look at last season as a perfect example. Some of the hottest teams in the NFL last year were dead last or almost dead last in their divisions the prior season. The Rams, Jags, Vikes and Eagles were all pretty much poopy in 2016. They all have a good offseason, pull in the right people in a few key areas, and suddenly their fortunes have turned. Are there leagues with MORE parity? I guess. Is this an "all or nothing" argument where you "either have parity or you dont?" Of course not. It's like arguing you are either completely free or you arent free at all. I have looked at the past, its not as different as you are claiming. I'll spend some time and get back to you with the numbers. (I'll compare 78-92 to give it the same number of years but before the cap was implemented). While I am compiling data, I am curious what you consider the parity creating rule changes and when were they implemented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, youngosu said: You ignore the luxury tax. As I said earlier, even the Yankees don't want to pay that. So in effect MLB has a salary cap making your argument moot. The Yankees can't just spend more because they will stop once they reach luxury tax territory. If you actually follow MLB you'd know that the luxury tax is essentially a salary cap. Its why so many free agents remain unsigned. There are plenty of players the Royals could outbid the Yankees for still available. Again, the Royals are making a choice, its not forced on them. MLB basically has a 197 million dollar cap in 2018. A few teams (I believe the Red Sox are the only team over the threshold right now) will exceed that but they will try their best not too. The Royals have plenty of revenue to stay competitive (payroll) wise with the vast majority of MLB but are making the choice to pay less. As I said above, the only difference between the Bills and Royals is that the NFL forces the Bills to spend a certain amount. MLB lets teams decide. The opportunity remains there rather you want to admit it or not. As for my use of parity, no I am using results to determine if parity exists. What else am I suppose to use? As for the rest of your post, I am not the one arguing that the NFL salary cap and draft is what means the NFL has parity so not sure why repeating the "equal opportunity" argument takes up 3 paragraphs. I grant that NFL teams have "equal opportunity" but in spite of that "equal opportunity" the league doesn't really have all that much parity. The Yankees pay the luxury tax. It's not a cap. What the hell are you talking about? There are teams that quite frankly couldn't afford to pay the luxury tax. Teams like the Brewers and Paders wouldn't be able to afford it. Hell in 2004 the Brewers as a team were bought for less than the Dodgers payroll this season. You have no clue what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, lancerman said: The Yankees pay the luxury tax. It's not a cap. What the hell are you talking about? There are teams that quite frankly couldn't afford to pay the luxury tax. Teams like the Brewers and Paders wouldn't be able to afford it. Hell in 2004 the Brewers as a team were bought for less than the Dodgers payroll this season. You have no clue what you are talking about. You might want to do some research. The Yankees most certainly are not paying the tax in 2018. They had in prior years but MLB rules have made the tax far more punitive and virtually every team is getting under it now. But keep telling me I have no idea what I am talking about. As for the Padres and Brewers, both had revenue of around 250 million in 2016 (Brewers 239, Padres 259) so while they couldn't afford to pay the luxury tax they ain't exactly on the street corners begging for change. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/ But either way, it doesn't change the fact that despite MLB allowing free market spending while the NFL using socialistic market spending both leagues have virtually identical amounts of parity so what difference is the cap making again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Issue Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, youngosu said: I have looked at the past, its not as different as you are claiming. I'll spend some time and get back to you with the numbers. (I'll compare 78-92 to give it the same number of years but before the cap was implemented). While I am compiling data, I am curious what you consider the parity creating rule changes and when were they implemented? You just mentioned a primary rule change. The advent of unrestricted free agency in the early 90's. And the salary cap in the mid 90's (?). Add in the addition of compensatory picks around the mid 90s (?). Plus the NFL combine so that all teams can sit in one area and see the same performances from the top college players, which really began hitting its stride in the mid 80's. All of which were aimed at addressing the leagues distinct lack of parity back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 26 minutes ago, youngosu said: You ignore the luxury tax. As I said earlier, even the Yankees don't want to pay that. So in effect MLB has a salary cap making your argument moot. The Yankees can't just spend more because they will stop once they reach luxury tax territory. If you actually follow MLB you'd know that the luxury tax is essentially a salary cap. Its why so many free agents remain unsigned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 Just now, Non-Issue said: You just mentioned a primary rule change. The advent of unrestricted free agency in the early 90's. And the salary cap in the mid 90's (?). Add in the addition of compensatory picks around the mid 90s (?). Plus the NFL combine so that all teams can sit in one area and see the same performances from the top college players, which really began hitting its stride in the mid 80's. Is revenue sharing on your list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.