Selig: "My dream of parity is coming closer..."

[Basketball Jesus]

Kind of an aside, but few people realize that the NFL has a salary floor...75% of the cap. Cool, huh?

[Basketball Jesus]

Also, kind of relevant is that one of the major reasons the NFL wanted a cap in the first place was to prevent teams from creating

[Basketball Jesus]

Also, most importantly: I'm not saying there is perfect parity in baseball - far from it. But implement salary restrictions in the form of some kind of cap isn't going to cure all ills. There isn't enough of a tangible advantage to having a large payroll to justify it. Unlike football, where there are limited ways of constructing a team and far more positions to staff, baseball has many different ways that are equal to almost any team willing to put in some time, a little bit of money, and some effort.

If were to change anything to make it more "even", I'd do the following:

- Create more stringent compensation for free agent signings. There's already compensation in the form of draft picks, but there should be stronger financial penalties against teams that sign multiple Type A and B free agents in a given offseason.

- Luxury tax funds are to be divided among the bottom 1/5 of the league in terms of profit margin with the requirement these funds are to go towards securing the rights of amateur draft picks.

[FNQ]

Coming from a team that has seen essentially every one of its "marquee" players go, trading them or watching them walk and getting as good as value as we probably could in return, and STILL not having that be enough, speaks volumes about the problem with parity.

When a marquee FA comes out, there are essentially 5 or 6 destinations. When an internation FA comes out, you can narrow that down to 3-4 coastal, high-market teams.

Those 2 bullets would certainly improve the situation, but until there is a salary cap, there will never be parity. Money may not be the all-encompassing factor (incompetence will always be the #1 reason of failure) but that all depends on your definition of failure. Is not making the playoffs a failure, or not winning the WS? Keep going - please. Because once you pass those examples, you'll see a consistent trend of the top money teams winning, sans the Marlins of 03. You'll see the #1 spending team consistently in the playoffs. Also, lets keep these in context: All of those low level teams shuffle in and out as arbitration and unrestricted free agency hit them.

The problem about talking about this to a big-market team fan is they see one side of the coin. This isn't only about teams not being able to get in, but others not leaving. The Yankees, #1 in payroll, consistently in the playoffs. The Red Sox in any other division would be in it every year as well. The Angels will likely stranglehold the AL West for a while as well. In the end, competent FOs with more money win out more than the same skill of FOs with less money, and until the situation is modified, Selig has no business even mentioning parity.

[Scrub Sura]

Until MLB forces Boston and New York to reduce their payroll from ridiculous to somewhat reasonable, there is no such thing as parity.

If you really want to solve the problem, you have to start at the top with the biggest abusers.

[TheKingNbooby]

Exactly^ I mean Red Sox and Yanks are gurranteed to get to the playoffs every year with the talent they buy. However a team like the Pirates for example may have a hope of 1 good season out of 1, not becuase of bad management, but becuase they do not have the revenue contracts to be able ot field a decent team

[cmaff051]

Exactly^ I mean Red Sox and Yanks are gurranteed to get to the playoffs every year with the talent they buy. However a team like the Pirates for example may have a hope of 1 good season out of 1, not becuase of bad management, but becuase they do not have the revenue contracts to be able ot field a decent team

I call bull. The reason the Pirates have been absolutely terrible for the last 10 years is due to their management, not the Yankees or the Red Sox. Hell, the Yankees and Red Sox aren't even in their division. Hell, a mediocre 85 win Cubs team won that division. Pirates have nobody to blame but their management for their problems. Same thing with the Royals and Orioles.

[Basketball Jesus]

Coming from a team that has seen essentially every one of its "marquee" players go, trading them or watching them walk and getting as good as value as we probably could in return, and STILL not having that be enough, speaks volumes about the problem with parity.

How so? Because your team hasn't won a World Series? Sorry to tell you this, but your team is not a unique snowflake: 29 other teams share the same fate every season. Also, the last time a top 3 payroll team won the World Series was the Red Sox in 2004. Prior to that, the Yankees in 2000. That's twice in seven seasons which, as any statistician will tell you, is close to normal distribution.

Sure, larger payrolls (spent wisely) put teams in a better position to make the playoffs but, as I showed in a few posts previous, it doesn

[FNQ]

I dont want to get into it as its taking a lot longer than I thought...

But you are seeing the problem through blinders if you admit that the Yankees and Sox are usually locks for the playoffs because of their high salary and the shuffle below them is OK.

You are essentially saying - there is parity, so long as you don't play for the Yankees or Red Sox. The rest of the teams are equal due to mismanagement, stingy owners or just overall low budget. The dregs of teams are just the scapegoats and the A's, Twins and other low-market teams that win are 'heralded' as successes despite the fact that their prolonged success never resulted in a ring and for the most part, neither team was close.

There is no results for Selig... he makes a pretty penny off of NY and BOS being in the playoff hunt so his idea of parity involves turning his back on that situation.

[FNQ]

And reiterating doesnt make it true?

If the A's retain Giambi, Tejada, and its big 3 through their primes, they wouldn't have a legit shot at a title? Then factor in that we could trade our young prospects for more legit stars like the Yanks/Sox do? Harden, Street, Crosby (at his time), Blanton... surely could have fetched some impact veterans, possibly stars. There won't be any proof until a highly publicized GM leaves a low-market team and inherits a high market one and is given nearly complete control of a high-market team. Its easy to say that hasnt happened yet so there is no basis since it will never happen, as these big time teams run like corporations. If you really think Epstein and Cashman have the final, unquestioned say on their teams, its a dream...

[Basketball Jesus]

I

But you are seeing the problem through blinders if you admit that the Yankees and Sox are usually locks for the playoffs because of their high salary and the shuffle below them is OK.

Hunh? Really, re-read this.

You are essentially saying - there is parity, so long as you don't play for the Yankees or Red Sox.

No. I'm saying that even though there is a payroll disparity, it's not creating the kind of overall imbalance your mind seems to think exists. There are other ways of compiling a successful team. There are myriad examples of this. None of which you seem to accept.

The dregs of teams are just the scapegoats and the A's, Twins and other low-market teams that win are 'heralded' as successes despite the fact that their prolonged success never resulted in a ring and for the most part, neither team was close.

Again, given that only one team can win a World Series ring and that each of those teams I've listed have been perennial playoff contenders, yes, they can be considered successful. Given that a MLB season is 162 games long and that there are only four playoff spots per league, being in contention every year is a very tough thing to do.

Your problem is that you keep pointing to the AL East (namely the Sox and Yankees) to "prove" your point without conceding that this kind of disparity just does not exist in the other five divisions. And, for all the playoffs the Sox and Yankees make, they sure don't seem to be winning all of them outright even with large payrolls.

T

here is no results for Selig... he makes a pretty penny off of NY and BOS being in the playoff hunt so his idea of parity involves turning his back on that situation.

What the bloody hell are you talking about?

I'm done. This is nothing but a circular argument.

[FNQ]

And your point is that the other 5 divisions are ok so the Yankees and Red Sox, the obvious beneficiaries in all of this, can be ignored.

That's like saying we have racial equality, except for those damned (insert any race here).

You keep ignoring how these teams with 'parity' compare with the Sox and Yankees, teams with money and competent management. And Selig doesnt care because he makes so much money off the NY-BOS rivalry and the hype that surrounds it, because that is much more important to him than parity.

Its completely naive to say that the payroll doesnt play a key part in the disparity in baseball. Just because it hasnt become a fixture in some divisions yet, doesnt mean that it isn't becoming that. The Cubs and Angels are doing the exact same thing the Yanks and Sox do - overpaying the highest talents, and just waiting for another low-market team's star to want more money than they can afford to give. Perhaps we should just wait for the White Sox, Mets and Dodgers to get some good FO people as well, and then we'll address the problem.

For Selig to say the situation is getting better at all... hilarious. Especially when the Cubs and Angels are quietly becoming the next big money spenders and keeping their division on lock.

[Basketball Jesus]

And your point is that the other 5 divisions are ok so the Yankees and Red Sox, the obvious beneficiaries in all of this, can be ignored.

How are the Red Sox and Yankees the

[TyCobb]

The aging Angels, whose offensive mediocrity carried them to a division title over an overachieving (and overspending) Mariners team, an injured Oakland club and a foundering Rangers club? These are the teams that have their division on lock?

Please stop. For the sake of the children.

Aging Angels? Anderson is 35. He's really the only old starter on the Angels. Vlad (31), Cabrera (32), and Escobar (31) are the other starters over 30. The rest of the team is really young.

If by aging you just simply mean getting older...isn't it like that for every team?

I'd say the Angels have the division on lock for quite some time. Kendrick, Wood, Guerrero, Kotchman, Morales, Mathis, Napoli, K-Rod, Weaver, Escobar, Lackey,...they're going to be around for a while.

[Basketball Jesus]

My bad; I thought they were a lot older than that. Still, they have a few key positions over 30.

[Rafael122]

My bad; I thought they were a lot older than that. Still, they have a few key positions over 30.

Which ones? There are like 4 guys over 30 who play regularly for them, and its not like they are that old (except Anderson). Age doesn't mean a whole lot, especially when you consider the Yankee teams of the 90s with a roster full of 30 year olds...the Paul O'Neils, Tino Martinez, Wade Boggs, John Olerud, etc.

[FNQ]

Ok... so now equality means that other teams have to have wiser, better FOs to compete with the Yankees and Sox? That's the basis of what you have been saying, which of course, isn't equal at all.

Of course the Yankees and Sox pay some tax - they still turn an insane profit. Telling half the story really makes your side look better, I admit Again because of locale, they can afford to do this. Its a smart move on their part, take advantage of the rule since MLB obviously has no interest in making the field level there. Hell, they even have their own channel.

As for Selig making money... way to be literal. Its becoming obvious that as your arguments are half-sided that weak attempts at insults are replacing them...

The Cubs are not as sure as the Angels, but surely have a better set of talent than the Brewers and much more budget to spend... getting ARod as a possiblity next season as well. The Angels have been well represented above and as an A's fan, they're right, our division looks tough as hell for the next few years.

The bottom line is that it isn't equal, it does have a profound impact on the game. And you can say that it can be counteracted with good scouting, wise-spending, all that - it shouldnt have to. The fact that teams have to do that proves that the field isn't level.

[High 5]

All this parity has made for an exciting divisional round.