See you guys are destroying my point.

I love the salary cap for NBA basketball, and to a certain extent in NFL football (shouldnt be hard cap IMO). But in baseball, Players are farther than a sure thing (especially pitchers). Even the best of the best pitchers run out of fuel quick. Small market clubs in baseball are able to hold on to their players for a good amount of time (usually at least 10 years) at a reletively low price. The Twins had Santana until the end of the 2007 season. Santana is never going to be the great player he once was, and with the Mets, we began to see glimpses of whats to come in the decline. Don't get me wrong, Santana is amazing still, but I think he has peaked already.

In the NFL and NBA, players are still real young as free agents, and have more of an impact where to go (especially in the NBA). In MLB baseball, one or two or five free agent signings wont make or break a team, especially if they are beginning at 28 years of age for the most part. In the NBA, just 1 player can make a team (aka LeBron). In the NFL, One guy cannot make or break a team, but anyone is eligible at a free agent at any age. Even though they usually don't join until the age of 21, they can make up a free agent market at any age, making there investments incredibly valuable.

The fact that baseball has a HUGE minor league system, there able to hold players and their rights for incredibly long periods of time, as their able to scout 16 year olds, sign them cheap for 12 years, and they wont be free agents until the age of 28 cuz of arbitration and all that mumbo jumbo.Salary cap is useful and necessary in most leagues. Not in the MLB.

You also need to remember that the Yankees haven't won a world series since they started the gross over spending.

StuckInSoCal wrote:You also need to remember that the Yankees haven't won a world series since they started the gross over spending.

I think what they forgot is that you win with pitching and defense. They just spent their money in the wrong areas. The put together an incredible offense but lousy defense and pitching.

TMC wrote:

bigstrads wrote:I mean, there have been comparisions to European soccer in here, which is the closest comparison that can be found in all of sports, with the big clubs of Europe always getting the best players because they have the money.............BUT THE KET DIFFERENCE, is that they have to pay a transfer fee, aswell as the money to pay the player those high wages.

So, if a lower club brings up some young guy, and nutures him to stardom..........if he wants to move to a bigger club, or the team wants to let him go, then they are compensated with the transfer fee (I mean, a 20 year old phenom would typically fetch about $40 million! or more.........that is some kind of compensation huh? instead of just investing all your time and effort to develop the player, to have them leave for nothing)

I don't know if I agree. First, in euro soccer there's a free agency of sorts, although it's reduced on its scope, due to the active transfer market. Still, each year, several big name players make wait til the end of their contracts to be free and sign with whoever they want.

Also, the transfer market is based on money, not players, which makes it more boring for fans and also means those big teams will improve no matter what, because they aren't losing anything (well, money). It's a good way to finance lesser teams, but doesn't help improve the competition level.

Problem is, without a salay cap, nobody but the big teams have a chance to win anything, which makes it quite boring in the end. Here in Spain is a two horse race year after year. Which turns some people (like myself) away from the game. I only pay attention to a few big games at the end of the season because, frankly, the rest of the season doesn't mean sh*t.

I just can't stand leagues without a salary cap. And I'd like to see the NBA with a hard salary cap, not one you can overcome with multiple exceptions (granted, it would have to be higher and player contracts couldn't be guaranteed to make it work, which means we'll never see it).

Well, my point was more about the "compensation" aspect of it..........of course, I dont agree that the big teams just buy all the players and thats that, plus the buying of players, especially big/promising ones, is much more common that them signing as free agents..........so thats not really comparable.

All I was saying is that rather than the big teams just TAKING the player that the smaller team has nutured, in soccer, the smaller team is compensated with a nice transfer fee............which they can then go out and buy 2-3+ players with, so they arent just losing a great player for nothing..........like what happens with free agent signings.

bada wrote:

StuckInSoCal wrote:You also need to remember that the Yankees haven't won a world series since they started the gross over spending.

I think what they forgot is that you win with pitching and defense. They just spent their money in the wrong areas. The put together an incredible offense but lousy defense and pitching.

but if history shows bada, i can't compensate pitching with buying it. Pitching is homegrown. Hence my entire argument on why a salary cap is unnessesary. I don't think CC will ever be worth the 180 million he got. He doesn't have many years left of domination. Maybe 2 or 3, and im being optimistic. Burnett has bust written all over it.

There very few maddux's (never dominating stuff, but accurate) or nolan ryans (just an arm that never got tired) combined. I can't name a guy that you can point to and say hey, he'll be around for a while. Maybe Zito, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll be accurate, i think he's got excellent stamina.

Don't worry bada, the baseball gods will guide us to excellence. They brought us replay didn't they?

bigstrads wrote:Well, my point was more about the "compensation" aspect of it..........of course, I dont agree that the big teams just buy all the players and thats that, plus the buying of players, especially big/promising ones, is much more common that them signing as free agents..........so thats not really comparable.

All I was saying is that rather than the big teams just TAKING the player that the smaller team has nutured, in soccer, the smaller team is compensated with a nice transfer fee............which they can then go out and buy 2-3+ players with, so they arent just losing a great player for nothing..........like what happens with free agent signings.

Yeah, I get your point. It's just that I don't think that the transfer fee helps them that much.

I mean, problem is, they won't be able to sign an adequate replacement for the star they sell with that money, because all the stars go to big teams, due to the lack of a salary cap. So all the replacements they may sign will be washed up players, average or just young, promising (but not too promising) guys.

That is, if those teams decide to invest that money on signing new players, which ain't always the case. Sometimes, that compensatin goes straight to the owner's pockets (not so much on the Premier League, but it happens a lot on other leagues).

TMC wrote:

bigstrads wrote:Well, my point was more about the "compensation" aspect of it..........of course, I dont agree that the big teams just buy all the players and thats that, plus the buying of players, especially big/promising ones, is much more common that them signing as free agents..........so thats not really comparable.

All I was saying is that rather than the big teams just TAKING the player that the smaller team has nutured, in soccer, the smaller team is compensated with a nice transfer fee............which they can then go out and buy 2-3+ players with, so they arent just losing a great player for nothing..........like what happens with free agent signings.

Yeah, I get your point. It's just that I don't think that the transfer fee helps them that much.

I mean, problem is, they won't be able to sign an adequate replacement for the star they sell with that money, because all the stars go to big teams, due to the lack of a salary cap. So all the replacements they may sign will be washed up players, average or just young, promising (but not too promising) guys.

That is, if those teams decide to invest that money on signing new players, which ain't always the case. Sometimes, that compensatin goes straight to the owner's pockets (not so much on the Premier League, but it happens a lot on other leagues).

Still.............getting $40 million is better than NOTHING huh?

bigstrads wrote:Still.............getting $40 million is better than NOTHING huh?

Well, there are only one or two signings for that much each year. Most of them are ridiculously low because the player forces his team to trade him.

Who's gonna pay a transfer fee of $40 million nowadays?. Man City and... who else?. Even Abramovich has shut down as of late.

And it's gonna get even worse, because most teams are close to bankrupt due to those expensive signings of old. As an example, Valencia has more than $600 millions of debt. Some of those teams might even disappear due to their lack of financial control.