How 'Bout Them Rangers

[MaverickPS]

People often question my sports teams. I've just gotten around to absolutely adoring it when they do, because it's more hilarious than it is painful to see an illiterate moron on a message board make absurd comments with nothing to back him up. My dad grew up in Texas. He idolized the Cowboys and like most texans (my turn to stereotype woooohoo!) knew nothing about baseball and didn't care for baseball. I was born in New Jersey. My grandfather from my mom's side, who has lived in the Tri-State area since 1940, was an enormous Yankees fan. He took me to my first, I'd say, 200 baseball games when I was growing up. All Yankees games.

Anything else you wanted answered? Remember ****stain, it's down the road not across the street.

your grandfather on your mom's side was a front-running wanker.

 

[Eldorado]

Stop quoting that guy. I already have him on ignore and you're ruining it.

It takes one to know one.

 

[Eldorado]

your grandfather on your mom's side was a front-running wanker.

My grandfather on my mom's side also passed away when I was 13. It's still one of the most painful memories of my entire life. Stay classy.

 

[MaverickPS]

My grandfather on my mom's side also passed away when I was 13. It's still one of the most painful memories of my entire life. Stay classy.

My apologies, Eldorado... didn't even think about that. I'll think before I speak next time. Again, I'm sorry.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This thread is about how well the Rangers are doing. Why are we arguing who is better the Rangers or the Yankees. If you're a Yankee (or Rangers) fan and just want to argue that point, start a thread about it.

Personally, it doesn't matter until it matters. In the playoffs providing both teams make the playoffs. If the Redsox get hot and the Rays stay hot, the Yankees could get left out. Of course if the Rangers go frosty cold, they could too.

As a parting shot at the Yankees; if you slapped a salary cap in baseball, the Yankees would turn into the Cubs. Why? Can't have Tex, ($20M/yr) CC, ($23M/yr) A-Rod, ($32M/yr) Burrnett, ($16.5M/yr) Jeter, ($21M/yr) Rivera, ($15M/yr) Pettitte, ($11.75M/yr) Cano, ($11M/yr), Vazquez, ($11.5M/yr) Posada, ($13.1M/yr) Swisher, $6.75M/yr) Granderson, ($5.5M/yr) and Berkman ($14.5M/yr) on the same team and still be in any type of salary cap range. At times the Yankees have troubles even with a $200+ million dollar payroll. What was it, 2008 they failed to make the playoffs with a $200M+ payroll?

* Most salaries obtained from bizofbaseball.com

I don't agree with this at all. If their were a salary cap in Baseball, the Yankees would still ink more guys because if you can win in NY, you can make more money on endorsements then you can on a contract.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

there's a moron on here who's a Cowboys, Lakers, AND Yankees fan

I think his name is Bleu Star or something

truly a bandwagonner of the utmost degree and it's sickening

I'm a Cowboys, Yankees and Lakers fan. Thank you for the shout out.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I don't agree with this at all. If their were a salary cap in Baseball, the Yankees would still ink more guys because if you can win in NY, you can make more money on endorsements then you can on a contract.

Versus signing with another team that has more room under the salary cap? The only way I see this happening is if the money is close to equal. The second you sign players for $20M+ (or $30M in A-Rod's case) you begin to cripple your ability to sign other big named players.

Look at the cap and what it does in the NFL. It will happen the same way in baseball.

I will tell you this, there wouldn't be any team with 27 world championships if a salary cap had been in place. It just wouldn't be feasible.

 

[Stautner]

Versus signing with another team that has more room under the salary cap? The only way I see this happening is if the money is close to equal. The second you sign players for $20M+ (or $30M in A-Rod's case) you begin to cripple your ability to sign other big named players.

Look at the cap and what it does in the NFL. It will happen the same way in baseball.

I will tell you this, there wouldn't be any team with 27 world championships if a salary cap had been in place. It just wouldn't be feasible.

There wouls still be a lot because a heck of a lot of the Yankees championships occurred way before there was any thought of a salary cap in any sport.

Neverthless, I agree that they Yankees would not have the same kind of upper hand in the MLB of today if there were a salary cap. ABQCOWBOY may be right that a guy can make more on endorsements as a Yankee, but that's only if the Yankees are winning. With a salary cap the Yankees couldn't compete if they spent too big a chunk of their salary cap limit on just a few players. Also, doesn't NY have a state income tax? Texas doesn't, so the same money in Texas is worth more.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

There wouls still be a lot because a heck of a lot of the Yankees championships occurred way before there was any thought of a salary cap in any sport.

Neverthless, I agree that they Yankees would not have the same kind of upper hand in the MLB of today if there were a salary cap. ABQCOWBOY may be right that a guy can make more on endorsements as a Yankee, but that's only if the Yankees are winning. With a salary cap the Yankees couldn't compete if they spent too big a chunk of their salary cap limit on just a few players. Also, doesn't NY have a state income tax? Texas doesn't, so the same money in Texas is worth more.

Your point about taxes is valid. However, if you had a cap, all that would happen is that all player salaries would go down. You can say that the Yankees wouldn't be able to pay as much or sign as many players but every team in the Majors would have the same issues. Right now, the Yankees don't sign every big name. The players, IMO, would still sign with a big market. Even if the Yankees were not winning, players would sign with a big market team like the Yankees because it's not about winning. It's about advertising. Business is still going to use a player to market regardless of how the team might be doing in a major market. If the player is good or having a good year, it doesn't matter if the team is playing well or not. Marketing will still be there for the player because people will still like the guy if he's playing well. They will just view him as the one good player, so to speak. It's only my opinion but I still believe Big Market Teams would still sign more big time players in a capped league.

 

[Eldorado]

A salary cap would never work in baseball. To have a salary max, you'd need to institute a salary floor. For one; the players union would never agree to such a thing because it will cost players money. In addition, the bulk of the small market teams wouldn't be able to fill their roster up to the salary floor year in and year out. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[YosemiteSam]

There wouls still be a lot because a heck of a lot of the Yankees championships occurred way before there was any thought of a salary cap in any sport.

Neverthless, I agree that they Yankees would not have the same kind of upper hand in the MLB of today if there were a salary cap. ABQCOWBOY may be right that a guy can make more on endorsements as a Yankee, but that's only if the Yankees are winning. With a salary cap the Yankees couldn't compete if they spent too big a chunk of their salary cap limit on just a few players. Also, doesn't NY have a state income tax? Texas doesn't, so the same money in Texas is worth more.

In the 1920s - 1950s there were a lot less teams to compete with. (16 to be exact) Even then, the Yankees had the most money to spend.

The Yankees traded to get Babe Ruth for $125,000 cash and $300,000 in loans from Boston. Babe Ruth's salary was only $10k!! The Yankees paid 12.5x his salary to get him and then promised another 30x his salary in loans! That would have been like the Yankees giving the Rangers over $300M for A-Rod AND then giving them another $750M in loans! Over a billion dollars for A-Rod.

There is a reason the Yankees have 27 world series titles and it wasn't just luck or developing talent. The Yankees have always had more money than anyone else and took advantage of that by spending more than anyone else.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

A salary cap would never work in baseball. To have a salary max, you'd need to institute a salary floor. For one; the players union would never agree to such a thing because it will cost players money. In addition, the bulk of the small market teams wouldn't be able to fill their roster up to the salary floor year in and year out. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Ding-ding...

Everybody complains about how the Yankees are able to spend more but nobody complains about how the Yankees revenue share and nobody talks about the fact that other clubs don't spend those shared funds to bring in talent. The Yankees share more revenue then any other team in MLB. The split is designed so that poor teams get a larger share of the splits but the problem is that those teams see advantage is staying at the bottom as opposed to getting better. If they say at the bottom, the continue to get a larger share of the revenue split, while investing little to nothing in order to generate more funds.

You can't have it both ways. If MLB would open their books and allow people to see what they are actually spending on the team, this problem could be settled but they don't because they know they are pocketing those splits.

 

[Stautner]

Your point about taxes is valid. However, if you had a cap, all that would happen is that all player salaries would go down. You can say that the Yankees wouldn't be able to pay as much or sign as many players but every team in the Majors would have the same issues. Right now, the Yankees don't sign every big name. The players, IMO, would still sign with a big market. Even if the Yankees were not winning, players would sign with a big market team like the Yankees because it's not about winning. It's about advertising. Business is still going to use a player to market regardless of how the team might be doing in a major market. If the player is good or having a good year, it doesn't matter if the team is playing well or not. Marketing will still be there for the player because people will still like the guy if he's playing well. They will just view him as the one good player, so to speak. It's only my opinion but I still believe Big Market Teams would still sign more big time players in a capped league.

This is the thing you aren't considering. With a salary cap every team would have the same issues, whereas right now almost every team has money issues that the Yankees do not have.

Yes there would be some people that would sign with the Yankees over another team if the money were about the same, but with a salary cap the Yankees couldn't just match or surpass other offers with the regularity they do now.

And while the Yankess don't go after every player now, they have the freedom to go after who they decide they want or need. With a salary cap they almost certainly wouldn't have the space to just go get Lance Berkman in the middle of the season, not to mention there will very often be other teams with more cap space to compete with.

 

[Stautner]

In the 1920s - 1950s there were a lot less teams to compete with. (16 to be exact) Even then, the Yankees had the most money to spend.

The Yankees traded to get Babe Ruth for $125,000 cash and $300,000 in loans from Boston. Babe Ruth's salary was only $10k!! The Yankees paid 12.5x his salary to get him and then promised another 30x his salary in loans! That would have been like the Yankees giving the Rangers over $300M for A-Rod AND then giving them another $750M in loans! Over a billion dollars for A-Rod.

There is a reason the Yankees have 27 world series titles and it wasn't just luck or developing talent. The Yankees have always had more money than anyone else and took advantage of that by spending more than anyone else.

I understand and agree with this. All I'm saying is that it's not really realistic to talk about a salary cap in relation to those teams because they were in an age where such a thing was never conceived of.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is the thing you aren't considering. With a salary cap every team would have the same issues, whereas right now almost every team has money issues that the Yankees do not have.

Yes there would be some people that would sign with the Yankees over another team if the money were about the same, but with a salary cap the Yankees couldn't just match or surpass other offers with the regularity they do now.

And while the Yankess don't go after every player now, they have the freedom to go after who they decide they want or need. With a salary cap they almost certainly wouldn't have the space to just go get Lance Berkman in the middle of the season, not to mention there will very often be other teams with more cap space to compete with.

We don't know that Stautner because they won't open their books to show us.

The truth of the matter is that the Yankees don't go out and get these players to beat up on the lessor teams in MLB. They already have the talent to do that. They go out and get these players to beat up on the other teams in MLB who are also spending vast amounts of money to get players. If the Yanks didn't sign C.C., the Red Sox would have. My point is that if other teams didn't have the ability to do the same, it's very likely that the Yanks would not expend resources to make these kinds of moves either. The luxury tax imposed on teams who spend lots of money is not trivial. If it could be avoided, it would be.

 

[Stautner]

We don't know that Stautner because they won't open their books to show us.

The truth of the matter is that the Yankees don't go out and get these players to beat up on the lessor teams in MLB. They already have the talent to do that. They go out and get these players to beat up on the other teams in MLB who are also spending vast amounts of money to get players. If the Yanks didn't sign C.C., the Red Sox would have. My point is that if other teams didn't have the ability to do the same, it's very likely that the Yanks would not expend resources to make these kinds of moves either. The luxury tax imposed on teams who spend lots of money is not trivial. If it could be avoided, it would be.

They don't have to open their books, they have opened their wallets enough that the proof is there.

To me your point doesn't make sense. Of course other teams have resources, but the fact that the Yankees still outbid them means their resources aren't as great. If other teams had the ability to do the same, as you say, they Yankees wouldn't be the ones consistently coming out on top of the bidding.

And they aren't just going after players the Red Sox and others in their division are For example, there was never any indication the Red Sox were going after Berkman. They are competing with the entirety of MLB, and when they truly covet a player they don't get outbid. With a salary cap they would not have the luxury of being able to do that.

 

[YosemiteSam]

We don't know that Stautner because they won't open their books to show us.

The truth of the matter is that the Yankees don't go out and get these players to beat up on the lessor teams in MLB. They already have the talent to do that. They go out and get these players to beat up on the other teams in MLB who are also spending vast amounts of money to get players. If the Yanks didn't sign C.C., the Red Sox would have. My point is that if other teams didn't have the ability to do the same, it's very likely that the Yanks would not expend resources to make these kinds of moves either. The luxury tax imposed on teams who spend lots of money is not trivial. If it could be avoided, it would be.

The idea of a salary cap is two fold. One to limit the ability of teams to stock pile all the top talent due to having more cash than the lessor teams. This is why teams have a draft order. So all teams have a set ability to draft talent available.

Secondly, to prevent spending from getting out of control. In the case of the Yankees and Redsox, it is completely out of control. The proof is in the pudding. If you combine just A-Rod ($32M) and CC's ($23M) salary alone, you get the same exact salary of the entire Texas Rangers ball club to start the season. (was $55M)

The Rangers are a first place team too, so while their spending was limited. You can't say they were being like KC or the A's where they just won't spend any money.

The Rangers said their salary total should bump up to about $90M next season. That is a fair sum of money, but not even half what the Yankees spend. Many teams wanted Tex, Burnett, and CC, but the Yankees decided that wasn't going to happen. Next year they will do the same with Cliff Lee.

It's the haves and the have nots. Without a salary cap, baseball is broken.

IMO it's not a question as to if the players will accept it. It's a question how to impose it.

 

[Stautner]

The idea of a salary cap is two fold. One to limit the ability of teams to stock pile all the top talent due to having more cash than the lessor teams. This is why teams have a draft order. So all teams have a set ability to draft talent available.

Secondly, to prevent spending from getting out of control. In the case of the Yankees and Redsox, it is completely out of control. The proof is in the pudding. If you combine just A-Rod ($32M) and CC's ($23M) salary alone, you get the same exact salary of the entire Texas Rangers ball club to start the season. (was $55M)

The Rangers are a first place team too, so while their spending was limited. You can't say they were being like KC or the A's where they just won't spend any money.

The Rangers said their salary total should bump up to about $90M next season. That is a fair sum of money, but not even half what the Yankees spend. Many teams wanted Tex, Burnett, and CC, but the Yankees decided that wasn't going to happen. Next year they will do the same with Cliff Lee.

It's the haves and the have nots. Without a salary cap, baseball is broken.

IMO it's not a question as to if the players will accept it. It's a question how to impose it.

I agree. The guy who said it can't happen in baseball used arguments that would just as easily apply to football, yet football implemented a cap.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

They don't have to open their books, they have opened their wallets enough that the proof is there.

To me your point doesn't make sense. Of course other teams have resources, but the fact that the Yankees still outbid them means their resources aren't as great. If other teams had the ability to do the same, as you say, they Yankees wouldn't be the ones consistently coming out on top of the bidding.

And they aren't just going after players the Red Sox and others in their division are For example, there was never any indication the Red Sox were going after Berkman. They are competing with the entirety of MLB, and when they truly covet a player they don't get outbid. With a salary cap they would not have the luxury of being able to do that.

How so?

The Yankees don't consistently come out on top. There are lots of situations in which other teams land players the Yankees want. Do the Yankees have more money then any other team in Baseball? Yes. Do they always have the highest Salary? No. They will always be at the top but they are not always the highest spending franchise in baseball. To say that they have more money and that's why they are better is not an accurate assumption. The last 10 Champs.

2009 Yanks
2008 Phillies
2007 Red Sox
2006 Cards
2005 White Sox
2004 Red Sox
2003 Marlins
2002 Angels
2001 D'Backs
2000 Yanks

As you look at these teams, many of them are not what you would consider High End spenders. IN fact, I would say the majority were not.

 

[YosemiteSam]

How so?

The Yankees don't consistently come out on top. There are lots of situations in which other teams land players the Yankees want. Do the Yankees have more money then any other team in Baseball? Yes. Do they always have the highest Salary? No. They will always be at the top but they are not always the highest spending franchise in baseball. To say that they have more money and that's why they are better is not an accurate assumption. The last 10 Champs.

2009 Yanks - $209,081,577 (highest)
2008 Phillies - $98,269,881 (13th highest)
2007 Red Sox - $143,526,214 (2nd highest)
2006 Cards - $88,891,371 (11th highest)
2005 White Sox $75,178,000 (13th highest)
2004 Red Sox - $130,395,386 (2nd highest)
2003 Marlins - $55,872,106 (20th highest)
2002 Angels - $62,436,618 (16th highest)
2001 D'Backs - $85,126,449 (8th highest)
2000 Yanks - $95,285,187 (highest)

As you look at these teams, many of them are not what you would consider High End spenders. IN fact, I would say the majority were not.

I've added the team salaries and their ranking salary wise in the quote above.

btw, when was the last time the Yankees weren't the top spenders? (they were tops in all the lists I just checked to get the numbers posted above)

As for the Yankees not winning the WS every year, Jeter said it best. The best teams make it to the playoffs, the hottest teams win it. You can have all the best players, but if you are slumping, your chance of winning it all is pretty low.

If you look at that list, all those teams were spending a lot of money. The only team in that 10 year span that wasn't in the top half of money spenders was the Marlins. If you look at the 2003 Marlins roster, there are a lot of big time players there that hadn't landed monster contracts yet.

Josh Beckett, Brad Penny, Carl Pavano, A.J. Burnett, Rick Helling (20 game winner), Dontrelle Willis, Pudge Rodriguez, Luis Castillo, Alex Gonzalez, Derrek Lee, Mike Lowell, Juan Encarnacion, and Juan Pierre. If you would have tried to put that team together a few years after that season, it would have been easily a top salary. They had the quality guys before the demanded hugh salaries.