JoshPR Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Another Strike will come. This game is Ruined and they let George Ruin it. It makes me Laugh how gammons and company can make fun of the Brewers and stuff cause there bad and still say that a salary cap ain't necesarry. If George doesn't like a cap he can kiss Ass. 27, 28 owners against george and the Big s***s sould get it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Another Strike will come. This game is Ruined and they let George Ruin it. It makes me Laugh how gammons and company can make fun of the Brewers and stuff cause there bad and still say that a salary cap ain't necesarry. If George doesn't like a cap he can kiss Ass. 27, 28 owners against george and the Big s***s sould get it done. I know this a practical impossibility, but if the owners could somehow keep their team's stadium, team name and minor league affiliates, and go and form a new league that had a salary cap, MLB would be gone in 10 years. I firmly believe that the initial disadvantage of not having many "star" players would be quickly offset by the fact that every team has a legitimate shot at the title every year, assuming the other obvious pieces fall into place as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 How can anyone argue against a salary cap, when the Yankees have a pitching staff payroll of 75 million or so next season, and the Brewers have a payroll of $30 million for the whole team, and trade Sexson because they needed to lower it even further. When will you jealous lamo-socialists realize that some are born to have and some- to have not. It's, like, what nature itself intended and stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supernuke Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I know this a practical impossibility, but if the owners could somehow keep their team's stadium, team name and minor league affiliates, and go and form a new league that had a salary cap, MLB would be gone in 10 years. I firmly believe that the initial disadvantage of not having many "star" players would be quickly offset by the fact that every team has a legitimate shot at the title every year, assuming the other obvious pieces fall into place as well. The owners would never do that if they did they would lose their anti trust exemption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 The owners would never do that if they did they would lose their anti trust exemption. Yah, I know, this suggestion is chock full of logistical nightmares. My only point is that when a sports league isn't at least operating on the premise of a level playing field, it's not going to make it forever. Cheap, penny-pinching ownership aside, do you really think that Milwaukee, or Detroit, or Pittsburgh have the resources to keep up with the likes of NY, or Boston, or L.A.? Why would any Brewers, Pirates, or Tigers fans even bother supporting a team under those conditions? They're not, and it's getting worse every year. Where else can things be headed but towards contraction and a salary cap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supernuke Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Yah, I know, this suggestion is chock full of logistical nightmares. My only point is that when a sports league isn't at least operating on the premise of a level playing field, it's not going to make it forever. Cheap, penny-pinching ownership aside, do you really think that Milwaukee, or Detroit, or Pittsburgh have the resources to keep up with the likes of NY, or Boston, or L.A.? Why would any Brewers, Pirates, or Tigers fans even bother supporting a team under those conditions? They're not, and it's getting worse every year. Where else can things be headed but towards contraction and a salary cap? I see MLB dying before a salary cap is ever implemented. A cap would be based on a percentage of revenues and the owners have to many ways to hide those revenues and won't show their books and with out that the players will never agree. The other problem with a cap is that while it limits the big spenders it does nothing to bring up the low payrolls so you may be able to limit the Yankees to 100 to 120 mil under a cap but if the tigers and brewers are still only spending 30 mil nothing is solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I see MLB dying before a salary cap is ever implemented. A cap would be based on a percentage of revenues and the owners have to many ways to hide those revenues and won't show their books and with out that the players will never agree. The other problem with a cap is that while it limits the big spenders it does nothing to bring up the low payrolls so you may be able to limit the Yankees to 100 to 120 mil under a cap but if the tigers and brewers are still only spending 30 mil nothing is solved. Cap of $70 million. Over soem time, it would phase the super high salaries out. Teams wouldn't give guys $17 million a year and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Cap of $70 million. Over soem time, it would phase the super high salaries out. Teams wouldn't give guys $17 million a year and so on. It worked for the NFL. I'd take the "who's the favorite this week?" parity over "Another Yankee-RedSox Pissing Contest" any day. If the NFL didn't have a cap, there would be no Green Bay Packers anymore, or Buffalo Bills, or any number of other teams that wouldn'e be able to keep up financially with the Dan Snyders, and Jerry Joneses of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 The other problem with a cap is that while it limits the big spenders it does nothing to bring up the low payrolls so you may be able to limit the Yankees to 100 to 120 mil under a cap but if the tigers and brewers are still only spending 30 mil nothing is solved. Yes, but limit them to 70 and I can see a 45-Mill-but-with-a-great-GM-and-farm-system small market teams smoking those behemoths' asses year in and out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 To brandofan. Sept 2, Sept 8, Sept 13. Look em up. When the game means something, this man shows up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supernuke Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Yes, but limit them to 70 and I can see a 45-Mill-but-with-a-great-GM-and-farm-system small market teams smoking those behemoths' asses year in and out. The problem is the players would never agree to a set number such as 70 mil. It would have to be a percentage of revenues probably around 55 to 60%. Now if that were to happen the owners would have to open their books to the players union where their, shall we say interesting accounting practices would be picked apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 To brandofan. Sept 2, Sept 8, Sept 13. Look em up. When the game means something, this man shows up... 1. The season does not consist of 3 dates. 2. I remember the 6 inning/2 run game against Minny at USCF. Colon did NOT win that game- offense, defense and general luck did. Bartolo was VERY hittable that evening and even mediocre Minnesota hitters smoked LINE-DRIVES all over the place-- Valentin leapt up to take a 2-run gapper away from Doug Jones and Bartolo himself saved another 2 runs by sticking out his glove in desperation on Danny Hocking's liner up the middle and somehow the ball ended up in the glove.....Meanwhile, Valentin and Olivo got two flukey bloopers off Lohse in the 1st.....In reality, pitch quality wise, Bartolo should have been tagged for 5-6 runs in 5 innings-- more if he pitched like that against the Red Sox or Tankees in the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 OK, well the two games against Boston were undeniably incredible. And you are correct, the season is more than three dates. But those dates I pointed out were big dates and he won all of them, two in impressive fashion. Hes just a clutch player, thats what I was getting at... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 OK, well the two games against Boston were undeniably incredible. And you are correct, the season is more than three dates. But those dates I pointed out were big dates and he won all of them, two in impressive fashion. Hes just a clutch player, thats what I was getting at... If he is indeed clutch (I don't have the numbers but I doubt it) AND his overall ERA is 2.75, then give him the 10 Mill fii you want. But his ERA is 3.90 in a s***ty-hitting division, he is not very young anymore, his velocity declined a little and he has too many innings in his arm, is fat and mechanically unorthodox. 12 Mill? No way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Those three games show that he is clutch. Unfortunately the team failed so we cant truly see how well he served the team in those games. If we went to the playoffs, we would have been praising Colon for those games. Also, he went 242 with 9 complete games. Thats outstanding... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beast Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Williams told the Chicago Sun-Times. "Within the last week, the activity has been increasing." The White Sox's goals, he said, will be to replace what they lose in the free-agent market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Im not sure you can replace a Carl Everett or Robbie Alomar. But as much as I like him, Colon is replaceable. This following part negates my entire pro-Colon argument but oh well. I remember a game where Colon threw a wild pitch with a runner on third and he just halfassed it to the plate. I didnt care for that much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 Im not sure you can replace a Carl Everett or Robbie Alomar. But as much as I like him, Colon is replaceable. This following part negates my entire pro-Colon argument but oh well. I remember a game where Colon threw a wild pitch with a runner on third and he just halfassed it to the plate. I didnt care for that much Robbie and Varlo are so replaceable it's not even funny. Colon is less so, but again, anything over 8 Mill for him veers into "diminshed returns". Clutch (as I view it): Colon was 1-1, 3-60 ERA against the Twins, which is sorta good until you realize that he got very lucky not to get smoked the second game I mentioned above, the fact trhat he gave up 17 hits in 15 innings and struck out only 1 batter more than he walked. Was very mediocre in terms of actual pitch quality. Colon had 4.40 ERA in two starts against the Cubs. Not exactly stud numbers. Against our would-be oppenent in Disivsional Series, Yankees? .308 batting average against in 2 games. Enough said. Not exactly worthy of 20+ % of payroll, is he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Read my post in "Sox dont offer arbitration". Thats why Everett and Robbie arent replaceable. This team had very little heart, and the little heart we did have belonged to them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 If he is indeed clutch (I don't have the numbers but I doubt it) AND his overall ERA is 2.75, then give him the 10 Mill fii you want. But his ERA is 3.90 in a s***ty-hitting division, he is not very young anymore, his velocity declined a little and he has too many innings in his arm, is fat and mechanically unorthodox. 12 Mill? No way. I agree with you 100%. Given the restraints of the Sox payroll, Colon is not worth anywhere near $12 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.