What's Wrong with Baseball

[SouthPaw77]

For all of its rich history, and the valiant efforts to keep that history alive year after year, baseball almost always finds a way to fumble the most important issues in the game.

This isn’t going to be about Bud Selig calling an All-Star Game because the teams ran out of pitchers, or even about baseball’s handling of the steroids issue. No, this is a rant about common sense and finally getting things right...continue...

[Imgran]

It's not playing right now. That's what's wrong.

Salary Caps are Communist. The whole idea that a group that manages their finances well can't gain an advantage from that on the field is personally offensive to me. And if you'll look around the league, caps in the NHL, NFL and NBA have done rather little to curb rising player salaries. There's going to be overpaid superstars in every league anyway. All you're really doing is hurting the mid-ranked players. So what's the point?

BTW -- the contracts like Meche, A-Rod's first deal, all the money people wasted on Jeff Suppan, these contracts are being handed out by midcap and small cap teams. For the most part the big machines build to contend over multiple seasons, the crazy deals tend to come from the midcap teams trying to go for it now with the best guys they can get at the time. What that tells me is that the money is there if these teams are willing to spend it.

I mean for pity's sake, the Royals -- the ROYALS -- are spending $70M this year. All these other woe-is-me smallcap teams who can't push that far have no excuse but their own stinginess.

If the cap is anything less than a $130M ceiling, I want a $100M floor. If you can't meet it at least twice over any given 5 year period, franchise revoked. If it's that obvious that you don't have the resources to compete in this league I'm tired of coddling you. If you're going to maunder on about the excesses of the bigcaps, let's get a commensurate upping of the ante from the smallcaps too. And if you can't stand a salary floor that forces teams to spend at my definition of a "reasonable" rate, I don't want my team held down to YOUR arbitrary definition of same.

[doctor_gogol]

Salary Caps are Communist. The whole idea that a group that manages their finances well can't gain an advantage from that on the field is personally offensive to me. And if you'll look around the league, caps in the NHL, NFL and NBA have done rather little to curb rising player salaries.

How are salary caps "communist" if they benefit management? Can you explain that please?

[Imgran]

They dont benefit anyone. Owners can't use their money to improve the team and "capology" forces teams to get rid of players they want to keep and would have had the money to keep, players don't get paid as much, and league quality suffers when the premium teams are mashed down to the level of everyone else.

That, my friend, is communism. The veneer of fairness covering the inescapable fact that you're just oppressing everyone.

This is the big leagues. If you can't compete here, that's *on you* not on the rest of us.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Please keep political theory out of the discussion if at all possible.

[Imgran]

When you're talking about how the league should be governed, a little political theory is a necessary evil. It stops the league from repeating the mistakes of nations in microcosm.

But fine, let's just say that the salary cap is only "fair" because it's an equal opportunity annoyer. It offers nothing for everyone.

[CandlestickBum]

Please keep political theory out of the discussion if at all possible.

What? We're not encouraged to deconstruct baseball as an example of the struggle of the proletariat aganst the backdrop of history?

You're no fun anymore.

[Captain Cold Nose]

When you're talking about how the league should be governed, a little political theory is a necessary evil. It stops the league from repeating the mistakes of nations in microcosm.

But fine, let's just say that the salary cap is only "fair" because it's an equal opportunity annoyer. It offers nothing for everyone.

I did say if at all possible. I do agree with you, sometimes bases can be touched upon and need to be. I just like heading things off at the pass, because we all know how some love blowing right through that pass.

Facts without soapboxes as long as they are baseball-related are not automatic taboo. As long as it stays at that base level, it's not a political discussion, per se. That's where it would need to stay.

[RuthMayBond]

They dont benefit anyone.

OK, you're not a Yank fan but Bosox, next closest. Might it help those trying to keep pace with the likes of those teams?

<Owners can't use their money to improve the team and "capology" forces teams to get rid of players they want to keep and would have had the money to keep, players don't get paid as much,>

The ELITE teams

<and league quality suffers when the premium teams are mashed down to the level of everyone else.>

The quality of ELITE teams. Hasn't seem to hurt the NFL's popularity

<That, my friend, is communism. The veneer of fairness covering the inescapable fact that you're just oppressing everyone.>

Oppressing ELITE teams (who have done a bit of oppressing themselves)

<This is the big leagues. If you can't compete here, that's *on you* not on the rest of us.>

Why don't the Bosox try it, with the Pirates TV & ticket revenue?

[Imgran]

It HAS hurt the NHL.
It HAS hurt the NBA.

It only hasn't hurt football for three reasons.

1: The cap is high. It's quite possible to build a strong team and be under the cap
2: Contracts are not necessarily guaranteed -- a player cut is not always a player paid, and is almost never paid everything he would have been due were he not cut.
3: Trading draft picks allows more asset flexibility and allows creative solutions when a player needs to go.

Only #1 would be true in MLB.

that said, there are no teams anymore that are as individually dominant as the old pre-cap dynasties. No, not even the Pats, who get there with the kind of brilliant coaching that more money would support better.

I have little patience with any policy that rewards people for doing anything other than fielding the absolute most talent they can.

[Brian McKenna]

Only baseball allows one division contender to outspend another 5-1, 8-1 or even 10-1. It really doesn't make sense.

I'm not espousing a cap - ballplayers should get what they can - there is a lot of money out there. Frankly, I don't care if the talent or management gets it. What would make sense though is a reasonable system whereby all spend similar amounts of money.

Would anyone in their right mind play rotisserie baseball if one or a couple owners in each league was able to spend a lot more than the others to build their roster. Why allow the Yankees to keep trying to buy the pennant year after year? Seems foolhardy and a shining black eye for the sport.

[RuthMayBond]

I have little patience with any policy that rewards people for doing anything other than fielding the absolute most talent they can.

Said the fan of the team with the ability to outspend veryone but the Yanks, I would have liked to have heard your tune pre-2004

[Imgran]

It would have been the same. We didn't beat the Yankees back then because we didn't field a talented team.

Worth bearing in mind: Boston is only about the 10th biggest market in terms of overall strength. The fiscal power we wield right now in the league is something our ownership worked hard to create. pre-Henry we had money, but were never held up as a team against which other teams cannot financially compete. Field a talented team, make the investments that allowed us to do so, and -- hey presto -- we go from a team in the middle 15 in overall financial strength to undisputed #2.

Point is, who the big market teams are is relatively flexible. The Kansas City Royals are fielding a $70M payroll right now, so small market teams can push harder than you usually expect them to. And nearly every team in the league would make more money if they did something a little better, and that "something" usually involves talent on the field.

[Imgran]

Only baseball allows one division contender to outspend another 5-1, 8-1 or even 10-1. It really doesn't make sense.

I agree. small market teams need to spend more. They get financial support from the league, they have no excuse for underspending by this much.

[Hargrave]

Salary caps are neither communist nor free market. They are a simple agreement between management and labor.

None of it really has anything to do with pro baseball. The individual teams are all part of a larger corporation called MLB, if not legally, in a de facto sense. As it stands now, the board members (owners) with the deepest pockets are controlling policy (revenue distribution).

It might change, it might not. But why do the Minnestota Twins get nothing from the Yankees' local TV package? How much would the Yankees get from local TV if there were no opponents?

It would behoove the corporation for all members to prosper. The Yankees will have no one to play if they don't. NFL has it right. Teams regularly go from 4-12 to 13-3 in one season. Anyone can win it any year.

[mwiggins]

The Yankees will have no one to play if they don't. NFL has it right. Teams regularly go from 4-12 to 13-3 in one season. Anyone can win it any year.

And still a small handful of teams dominate the NFL for large stretches of years, even with a hard cap and extensive revenue sharing and free agency and a draft that includes almost all the NFL caliber talent. The main difference being two of those 3 teams are small markets. The MLB seems to have just as much parity, in terms of different teams winning pennants and World Series titles, but in the MLB a team based in a market like Indy would have zero chance of a consistent 100 game winner for the better part of a decade.

And some of that "you can go from 4-12 to 13-3 in one year" is that with so few games, you're record can get pretty flukey. See the Bears in 2001 when they went from 5-11 to 13-3, and then were steamrolled when they got to the playoffs. Or the Saints this year, when they went from 8-8 to winning 13 straight to start the season, but then were exposed when they faced a team like Dallas or Minny. But in the MLB, the Royals can't win 105 games on a back of a handful of lucky breaks and clutch plays. They can get hot and maybe lead the division at the end of May, but eventually, talent shows and the best teams normally win the most games.

[KCGHOST]

I suspect there are other things wrong with the Game other than one person opinion. Heck, he's complaining about something that doesn't even exist.

To me, I'd be more concerned about pace-of-play. Why the heck a 3-2 ballgame takes 3+ hours is pure hogwash.

[wu-tang clan]

I'm not fond of most national broadcasting, especially from Fox. It made me really angry when they interrupted the World Series in 2007 or 2008 (I forget) to report that A-Rod had signed a new deal.

As for the game itself, I think the biggest fault is in shorter field dimensions.

[King Crimson]

I'm not fond of most national broadcasting, especially from Fox. It made me really angry when they interrupted the World Series in 2007 or 2008 (I forget) to report that A-Rod had signed a new deal.

As for the game itself, I think the biggest fault is in shorter field dimensions.

There is a good reason why their is a mute button on the tv.It's because of people like Buck,Mccaraver,and Morgan.

[Dick Groat's syndrome]

I don't think there is anything that is wrong with baseball that can't be fixed (and probably rather quickly). With that being said, if I could change one thing about the modern game, I wish they could find ways to shorten the game. I wish that 3-hour+ games became the exceptions rather than the rules. Everyone expects to spend 3+ hours watching a football game, but that is only once a week. The beauty of baseball's schedule lies partly in the large number of games. It shouldn't be unreasonable for a working person, student, etc. to be able to catch several full games a week. Shorter games would allow this to happen and I think it would also increase baseball's popularity. Before everyone started ragging on baseball for the steroids issue, the number one complaint I heard as a kid was that the game was slow and boring. Unfortunately I still hear this complaint today.

[SamtheBravesFan]

the number one complaint I heard as a kid was that the game was slow and boring. Unfortunately I still hear this complaint today.

If I've learned anything from being a baseball fan, even for 19 short years, it's that baeball is always going to be "slow" and "boring" to a person if he or she doesn't engage himself or herself into watching the game. If you're engaged, you forget about the time. If you're not, you worry about the clock.

[King Crimson]

I hate to say it but baseball is like golf to most non-fans.It's very slow placedvso that make people not watch.I like to watch it :

[dgarza]

If I've learned anything from being a baseball fan, even for 19 short years, it's that baeball is always going to be "slow" and "boring" to a person if he or she doesn't engage himself or herself into watching the game. If you're engaged, you forget about the time. If you're not, you worry about the clock.

About right. As fast as some sports are, I find hockey, auto racing, and even basketball at times boring.
If you're playing, you're engaged for sure. But watching basekball, well it's almost too high scoring to make it interesting sometimes. A score means little in basketball. And if scoring can't keep me engaged, then I am forced to dig deeper, and I don't always want to.

[RuthMayBond]

About right. As fast as some sports are, I find hockey, auto racing, and even basketball at times boring.

"Turn left" ain't good enough for ya?

[dgarza]

"Turn left" ain't good enough for ya?

Only if everyone else is turning right