Expansion

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The problem isn't that cities can't support teams. They can. What is clear is that some cities and teams can bring in much more revenue than others. If a better system of revenue sharing were in place, you'd have a lot less trouble expanding baseball into the smaller markets.

 

OK, so I should have specified "under the current financial situation." And, under the current financial situation, I think it's clear that a few cities cannot support their teams.

 

That's why baseball needs to modify the current system. It would be in the best interests for everyone not named the Yankees.

 

If baseball expands into more locales, then there will be more baseball fans. It's much easier to be a fan when you can travel to a game every once in awhile.

 

I think baseball needs to find a way to share more local revenue while insuring that the revenue shared is spent on on-the-field talent. When that does, I think there are a number of markets which could support a team and it would improve the health of a number of existing teams.

[illiniguy]

The problem isn't that cities can't support teams. They can. What is clear is that some cities and teams can bring in much more revenue than others. If a better system of revenue sharing were in place, you'd have a lot less trouble expanding baseball into the smaller markets.

 

OK, so I should have specified "under the current financial situation." And, under the current financial situation, I think it's clear that a few cities cannot support their teams.

 

That's why baseball needs to modify the current system. It would be in the best interests for everyone not named the Yankees.

 

If baseball expands into more locales, then there will be more baseball fans. It's much easier to be a fan when you can travel to a game every once in awhile.

 

I think baseball needs to find a way to share more local revenue while insuring that the revenue shared is spent on on-the-field talent. When that does, I think there are a number of markets which could support a team and it would improve the health of a number of existing teams.

there has to be a bottom line they have to spend on the team then if there is more revenue sharing. I read an article that stated the Royals, or David Glass, makes $30 million by not paying a lot for his players through the money generated by revenue sharing. I can see why Steinbrenner doesn't wanna pay for the other leagues to do nothing.

[Careless]

I still don't know why Mexico can't have a team. Would the Devil Rays really be worse off in Mexico City than Tampa?

 

Yes. Mexico City is at an altitude of over 6,000 ft. It would produce conditions more severe than Coors Field. Monterrey would be a much better choice.

Would players want to live in Mexico? Would a larger number of ticket-buyers offset the lower ticket prices?

[Derwood]

So long as individual teams set their own TV deals (or worse, own their own networks), you'll never see an NFL style revenue sharing system

[CuseCubFan69]

The problem isn't that cities can't support teams. They can. What is clear is that some cities and teams can bring in much more revenue than others. If a better system of revenue sharing were in place, you'd have a lot less trouble expanding baseball into the smaller markets.

 

OK, so I should have specified "under the current financial situation." And, under the current financial situation, I think it's clear that a few cities cannot support their teams.

 

That's why baseball needs to modify the current system. It would be in the best interests for everyone not named the Yankees.

 

If baseball expands into more locales, then there will be more baseball fans. It's much easier to be a fan when you can travel to a game every once in awhile.

 

I think baseball needs to find a way to share more local revenue while insuring that the revenue shared is spent on on-the-field talent. When that does, I think there are a number of markets which could support a team and it would improve the health of a number of existing teams.

there has to be a bottom line they have to spend on the team then if there is more revenue sharing. I read an article that stated the Royals, or David Glass, makes $30 million by not paying a lot for his players through the money generated by revenue sharing. I can see why Steinbrenner doesn't wanna pay for the other leagues to do nothing.

 

Right. It's not Steinbrenners fault he bought the right franchise. These other guys knew going in that they were buying a small market team and what comes with that. I hate the NFL system.

[goonys evil twin]

I hate the NFL system.

 

You prefer?

[hardcorecubfan]

Having lived in Charlotte recently for a couple of years, I really believe this could be a viable market for MLB. I don't know why they are rarely even mentioned when the subject of franchise moves or expansion comes up.

 

I also believe that the Metro NY market could support another team. Long Island or New Jersey. Just my 2 cents.

 

why the east? Better baseball towns are Oklahoma City. I see Charlotte like another Florida Marlins , no fans until playoff time. I can see MLB granting Monterrey, Mexico or San Juan one before another in the states.

[Derwood]

I think the NFL system works because the teams act as 32 subsidiaries of one corporation, all following the same fiscal rules. The MLB acts like 30 franchises of one company, each creating their own rules with only basic fiscal guidelines governing them.

 

The thing I hate about the NFL are the non-guaranteed contracts

[goonys evil twin]

The thing I hate about the NFL are the non-guaranteed contracts

 

Why? I think they're great. If you deserve it, you'll get your money up front. If you don't perform, you're cut. They're the best thing that's happened to pro sports. MLB and especially the NBA are plagued with underperforming players taking up too much of the payroll.

 

These aren't blue collar workers getting shoved around, even the worst make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. If you work your tail off you'll keep getting more and more. If somebody passes you by, you better find a new line of work. It's a great system, and one of the primary reasons why football blows away all other US sports.

[CuseCubFan69]

I hate the NFL system.

 

You prefer?

 

No salary cap in any way.

[goonys evil twin]

I hate the NFL system.

 

You prefer?

 

No salary cap in any way.

 

byebye Green Bay. Hello 25 championships for the Giants.

 

Baseball's system sucks, and I'm very glad the men who started the NFL were smart enough to make the league the way they did.

[CuseCubFan69]

I hate the NFL system.

 

You prefer?

 

No salary cap in any way.

 

byebye Green Bay. Hello 25 championships for the Giants.

 

Baseball's system sucks, and I'm very glad the men who started the NFL were smart enough to make the league the way they did.

 

Just like the way the Yankees win each year right?

[goonys evil twin]

I hate the NFL system.

 

You prefer?

 

No salary cap in any way.

 

byebye Green Bay. Hello 25 championships for the Giants.

 

Baseball's system sucks, and I'm very glad the men who started the NFL were smart enough to make the league the way they did.

 

Just like the way the Yankees win each year right?

 

The Yankees do win each year. They might not win the WS, but they win 90+ games and have 25 championships. The Giants and Redskins probably win a combined 10 superbowls over the past 20 years under the messed up MLB system. The Bengals probably go under, Green Bay definitely goes under.

 

I can't name 1 team that doesn't have a shot to contend sometime in the 2 years in the NFL. I can name 10 MLB teams with litlte or no chance for the next 5 years.

 

NFL's system blows away the MLB. Why in the world do you have a problem with it?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I can't name 1 team that doesn't have a shot to contend sometime in the 2 years in the NFL. I can name 10 MLB teams with litlte or no chance for the next 5 years.

 

NFL's system blows away the MLB. Why in the world do you have a problem with it?

 

The system penalizes success. It's nearly impossible to have sustained success because of all the restrictions. I'm not saying not to have a salary cap at all, but the NFL's system takes parity to the extreme IMO.

[CuseCubFan69]

I hate the NFL system.

 

You prefer?

 

No salary cap in any way.

 

byebye Green Bay. Hello 25 championships for the Giants.

 

Baseball's system sucks, and I'm very glad the men who started the NFL were smart enough to make the league the way they did.

 

Just like the way the Yankees win each year right?

 

The Yankees do win each year. They might not win the WS, but they win 90+ games and have 25 championships. The Giants and Redskins probably win a combined 10 superbowls over the past 20 years under the messed up MLB system. The Bengals probably go under, Green Bay definitely goes under.

 

I can't name 1 team that doesn't have a shot to contend sometime in the 2 years in the NFL. I can name 10 MLB teams with litlte or no chance for the next 5 years.

 

NFL's system blows away the MLB. Why in the world do you have a problem with it?

 

I don't like a team being punished for drafting the right players. You have a team that makes a decent trade, drafts quality players and yet gets punished for it because they can't go over the cap. That's redicules. I dispise the Cowboys but when they were winning they did it because of the Walker trade and good drafting. I would have liked to see how far they could have gone if they didn't have to break their team apart because of a salary cap. They got punished because of their success. The same with the Eagles and Pats.

 

Another thing...scheduling. A 6-10 and under team is rewarded while the top teams are punished for being good the year before. The 6-10 play an easy schedule while the top teams play a harder one. It's a pro league for christ sake, make them play the same teams as the other teams do in their division. People complain about the Cubs playing the Red Sox/Yanks in a 162 game schedule while in the NFL they play 16 and it's ok to play different teams?

[Derwood]

The thing I hate about the NFL are the non-guaranteed contracts

 

Why? I think they're great. If you deserve it, you'll get your money up front. If you don't perform, you're cut. They're the best thing that's happened to pro sports. MLB and especially the NBA are plagued with underperforming players taking up too much of the payroll.

 

These aren't blue collar workers getting shoved around, even the worst make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. If you work your tail off you'll keep getting more and more. If somebody passes you by, you better find a new line of work. It's a great system, and one of the primary reasons why football blows away all other US sports.

 

It's not the players who are underperforming who get cut. It's the big name players who the GM's were stupid enough to give big money to in the first place. It's like "okay, we'll placate your enormous ego with a meaningless 10 year, $200million deal, but next year we'll cut you when we have cap issues." I know that players demand up front "signing bonus" money, but overall, it's a broken system.

 

I do like the national TV contract and revenue sharing, however.

[goonys evil twin]

It's not the players who are underperforming who get cut. It's the big name players who the GM's were stupid enough to give big money to in the first place. It's like "okay, we'll placate your enormous ego with a meaningless 10 year, $200million deal, but next year we'll cut you when we have cap issues." I know that players demand up front "signing bonus" money, but overall, it's a broken system.

 

I do like the national TV contract and revenue sharing, however.

 

Broken? You've got to be kidding me. The NFL is a broken system? If that's the case, MLB doesn't even have a system.

 

There's never been a 10/200 deal in the NFL.

 

But who cares if a big name player gets cut at the end of his deal when he's not worth the money? He signed knowing the likelihood of getting cut. He got his money up front. The team takes a big salary cap risk when doing that, which is what the system is designed for, keeping the league from becoming an us vs them league like MLB, where nearly half the teams have no chance of winning the world series the next 5 years.

 

You make choices in the NFL, go with big name big money stars and surround them with role players, or go with lesser stars and fit in better role players. If a team wants to spend big to try and win now, they can, but they also risk having to suck it up for a year or two to clean up the mess.

 

Philly and New England are two of the smartest run organizations in sports today, and they have been the two most successful teams in their respective conferences because of it. There is no Yankees in the NFL, paying more than 3 times what some other teams are paying for talent. When a team starts to get out of control like that, they are reigned in by the system.

 

It's not a perfect system, but it's by far the best in US sports.

[goonys evil twin]

I can't name 1 team that doesn't have a shot to contend sometime in the 2 years in the NFL. I can name 10 MLB teams with litlte or no chance for the next 5 years.

 

NFL's system blows away the MLB. Why in the world do you have a problem with it?

 

The system penalizes success. It's nearly impossible to have sustained success because of all the restrictions. I'm not saying not to have a salary cap at all, but the NFL's system takes parity to the extreme IMO.

 

That is hysterically lame.

 

What do you want, the Yankees and Braves winning every single year?

 

New England has won 3 of 4 Super Bowls. SF had a nice stretch under the salary cap era. Philly has sustained success for quite a while.

 

I can't believe how unbelievably ridiculous some of these complaints are against the NFL.

 

Why do people want to see the same team win every year? The best of the best compete for the title for a good stretch of years. The middle of the road is constantly churning. All the while the bottom of the barrel can change quickly with competent management.

 

And it's all due to the system they play in. There's a reason this postseason has bit the bullet. Nobody cares about the contestants because they've never seen them. The Yankees/Red Sox/Braves have been shoved down our throats for a decade, and the entire league suffers because of it.

[cubbieinexile]

You are right it is hysterically lame.

 

WE have a different WS winner every year now for 6 years. Of the 12 teams to play in the World Series we have had 10 different teams. We have had teams like the Rangers, Indians, A's, Mariners, Twins, Giants, Astros, and Cardinals rise and fall from greatness to not greatness.

 

The same team does not win every year in Baseball.

 

Baseball playing in a non football system does this: The best of the best compete for the title for a good stretch of years. The middle of the road is constantly churning. All the while the bottom of the barrel can change quickly with competent management.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I can't name 1 team that doesn't have a shot to contend sometime in the 2 years in the NFL. I can name 10 MLB teams with litlte or no chance for the next 5 years.

 

NFL's system blows away the MLB. Why in the world do you have a problem with it?

 

The system penalizes success. It's nearly impossible to have sustained success because of all the restrictions. I'm not saying not to have a salary cap at all, but the NFL's system takes parity to the extreme IMO.

 

That is hysterically lame.

 

What do you want, the Yankees and Braves winning every single year?

 

New England has won 3 of 4 Super Bowls. SF had a nice stretch under the salary cap era. Philly has sustained success for quite a while.

 

I can't believe how unbelievably ridiculous some of these complaints are against the NFL.

 

Why do people want to see the same team win every year? The best of the best compete for the title for a good stretch of years. The middle of the road is constantly churning. All the while the bottom of the barrel can change quickly with competent management.

 

And it's all due to the system they play in. There's a reason this postseason has bit the bullet. Nobody cares about the contestants because they've never seen them. The Yankees/Red Sox/Braves have been shoved down our throats for a decade, and the entire league suffers because of it.

 

I'm not saying I want the same team to win, but I definitely think it's unfair for the majority of teams to have to outright cut some of their best players every year because of cap penalties and restrictions. Making it more difficult for the teams who do things right shouldn't be the goal.

[SouthSideRyan]

Everyone gets a trophy!! It's tee ball all over again. The NFL system is terrible.

[Derwood]

Sorry to exaggerate. Here:

 

In 2004, Manning became the highest-paid player in NFL history at the time, signing a $99.2m contract for seven years with a $34.5m signing bonus, which averages out to $14.17m annually. Under the contract, Manning is also eligible to earn an extra $19m in incentives.