2 Baseball questions? One for those who complain about high payroll of certain teams & the 2nd for those->?
Who's teams have high payroll & are content with it.
1) For those who complain about the high payroll of the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Cubs(The top 4 high payroll teams) If it was the other way around & your team had the the higher payroll while the Yankees, Red,Sox, Cubs, Mets where low would you still complain or not?
2) For those who's teams has the high payroll who thinks the complaints of the fans of lower payroll teams to be nothing but hogwash if it was the other way around & your teams had the low payroll while the other teams had the higher payrolls would you accept it or would you suddenly complain?
Honest & respectable answers are appreciated.
- FozzyLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
As a fan of one of the high payroll teams (Cubs) I'll go ahead and answer #2.
I wouldn't care one bit as long as the Cubs were winning. And given that they haven't had all that much success with high priced talent lately (Soriano, Bradley, etc.) I might almost prefer that they build from within a bit more, rather than simply trying to outspend other teams . (Good news Cubs fans - the Cubs have more of the top 100 minor league prospects than any other NL team, according to Baseball America.)
And despite the fact that ny team does spend money, I actually would like to see a salary cap, provided that they follow the example of the NHl and also have a salary floor. While I think it's silly too allow a team to spend nearly twice as much as the team with the second highest payroll, i think it's also ridiculous to let other teams spend a horribly low amount on payroll. My thought would be that you set a realistic cap, then also set a minimum payroll of perhaps 75% of that cap. That way, if you set the cap at maybe $100 million, the teams that have been historically cheap will be forced to spend $75 million.
And if some owner claims he can't make money if he has to spend that kind of money, then perhaps he should find another business to be in. Sell the team, and if a buyer who can meet the payroll can't be found, perhaps you need to drop a few teams.
The one other thing I would add to any salary cap would be a version of the NBA's "Larry Bird Rule" - that is, allow teams to go over the cap in order to keep their own free agents. I would limit it to players that had been in the league for at least 8 years, the last 5 with that particular team. Then perhaps players would be a bit more apt to stay in a city for their entire careers, rather than moving around as much as they do. Roster stability is a key to building a fan base - it's a bit more difficult to identify with a team when the rosters turn over as quickly as they do. I know that in the Cubs case, they had 6 of their 8 position players in place for about 5 or 6 straight seasons - the entire infield of Santo, Kessinger, Beckert, Banks, as well as Hundley at catcher and Billy Williams playing in either left or right. Made it a lot easier to get to know the players, rather than trying to learn 15 or so new names each season.
Great question as always.
- Corey (Go Dubs!)Lv 71 decade ago
1. I don't spend a lot of time complaining about the high payrolls in baseball. My favorite team, the Giants, is about middle of the pack (about $85 mil). For the most part, I don't really fault the big spenders for their high salaried lineups. If they have the money coming in, they should have the right to spend it. It's better than them pocketing the profits and putting an inferior product on the field. If a team spends its money wisely, they can put a very good product out their if they draft wisely and develop their players. However, I do have a problem with the Yankees free spending ways, whose only strategy in chasing a championhsip is to throw money at it. Their payroll of $200 mil eclipses all of the other top teams. Tied for #2 are the Cubs and Mets at a paltry $135 mil. This chasm between 1 and 2 is mind boggling and tips the scales too heavily. Baseball needs to firm up their cap to stem this type of imbalance.
I'm not a Yankees hater at all...more of a Dodgers hater if anything, but it is getting out of hand. If I were a Mets, Red Sox, or Cubs fan I wouldn't feel guilty. Their spending is within the realms of acceptability and logic. If I were a Yankees fan, I would probably complain a little bit. I would realize the huge advantage, and it would probably take away from some of my satisfaction in winning. It's like Mike Tyson beating up on a 12 yr old. How satisfying can that be?
- Justin DLv 51 decade ago
2) Well, I'm a Met fan and have been on both sides of the fence. I remember always complaining about the Yankees spending money and everything in the 90's when the Mets didn't spend a lot of money. Now, that the Mets have a high payroll, I don't have a problem with it as much. I don't complain about teams spending money if they have it. So, I believe that if lower market teams had the money to get good players, the fans wouldn't complain. I'll admit that I actually wish the Mets were a lower market team so they're expectations aren't as high and people are not constantly looking at them with a microscope. Also tickets wouldn't be as expensive. The game becomes a little bit more enjoyable for me. There isn't this animosity between fans and players either.
- Anonymous6 years ago
Maybe it's the same reason football players get concussions even with those armored, padded helmets on their heads. Each guy seems to think, "Hey, I've got my skull good and protected! That means I can slam my head into dudes even harder."
Basically, all the well intentioned safety measures the world imposes on us are nullified by the psychopath that lies just below the surface in all of us.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
Since the beginning of the "live ball era", 1920, to the beginning of free agency, 1975, the Yankees won 20 of those 56 World Series, a .357 winning percentage. From 1976 through 2009, when the Yankees could have out spent all of baseball, they won 7 titles in 34 seasons, a .206 percentage. It would seem statistically speaking, they were better off before free agency, when salaries increased most significantly. Highest payroll has not been the major reason for winning every year since 1976. Certainly the ability to pay more for talent is a great advantage, but if not spent wisely does nothing to insure a title. Between titles won in 2000 and 2009, the Yankees lost one World Series (Marlins, 2003, with a decidedly lower bankroll) and lost in the first round 2002, 2005,2006 and 2007) before failing to make the playoffs in 2008. Mets were one of the big spenders for the past four years and only made playoffs once. Tampa Bay got to WS with one of lowest payrolls. The Pirates' new owners are worthless. They take money from the payroll tax and put it in their pockets, not on talent.
Smart GMs may get good to great talent, but players MUST win the championships, and money does not insure that.
- BrianLv 51 decade ago
You can compare the big market teams/high payroll teams to a chip leader at a poker table. Having that large payroll to work with allows you to "play more hands" (bid higher for certain players, offer bigger contracts, etc..) So in a sense, the bigger market teams "bully" the rest of the league. Business is business though. And nobody forces the players to choose the contracts that are offered, but lets face it. If big money was staring you in the face, are you going to be so hasty to turn it down?
Just because you are chip leader though, does NOT guarantee that you will always win the hand though. Look at the 2008 Rays. They had one of the lower budgets in the league, and they made it to the World Series. They did the best with what they had, and almost came away with the rings. Minnesota is another organization that has done well lately on one of the smaller budgets too.
- 1 decade ago
Ok...Honesty....I will be answering number 2.
If the Yankees could still do well without the high payroll, (a bit doubtful but still), then I would have no complaints. But if the Yankees were massacred every time in free agency and just couldn't get the players they needed, then I would have a problem. But then there is also the revenue sharing. I believe that the Yankees, if they could receive revenue sharing, would use it to actually improve the team, and could still get some players. Basically, it would be about how successful the Yankees would be with a small payroll. I know that probably sounds really bad, but how can you complain if your team is doing well?
Good question, I liked how it forced me to look at life from the small market teams perspective. =]
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Having a high payroll doesn't always translate to success. The Mets have been a perfect example of this, you have to have someone who is knowledgeable enough to build a team the right way, not an @sshole like Minaya.
It has been proven that since the last strike, the teams that spend more, win for, for the most part.
- mm117Lv 61 decade ago
Hey good question
Well my team is the dodgers and we are kind of in the middle and as most people know we've had some issues this year because of Franks divorce going on and I don't really care about teams with high pay rolls. What i think is there should be a floor salary (or salary floor? idk what its called). That way, teams can still spend as much as they want but then the worse teams with no money can still have a shot. Its obvious that when peoples teams don't have the ability to go out and get players like the yankees they get upset because they don't really even have a shot to begin with, which is understandable. they just want to have a shot because lets face it, its not as much fun when your team has no chance of even competing because they are broke.
- White SoxLv 71 decade ago
1. I don't complain much but I would probably take the same action as Yankees fans do now. I'm not sure though, the White Sox don't have a huge payroll.
The White Sox are always in the middle ground, so I do enjoy that.