Carl Crawford signs 7-year, $142 million deal with Boston Red Sox

• jordo212000

  

  Hb31187;594813 wrote:No the current system is fine. Let the Yanks Sox and Angels continue snapping up every big name FA. I like that as soon as a small market player is up for a new contract he immediately leaves the team that he was brought up with because the Yanks, Sox and Angels offer him an ungodly amount of money. Then those teams suck for a few years, pack the minors full of talent, bring that talent up...and the process repeats. /End sarcasm

  Says the guy who slobbers over the NBA. How is that Lakers-Celtics rematch going to go this year? This is the rubber match right? They have played 2 of the last 3 years. You ever see the percentage of NBA championships that the Lakers/Celtics own?
  
  This is reality. Certain franchises are just operated better than others. They are located in attractive locations and can offer money and cache. Players are going to gravitate towards that. Because of their success/location said franchises are attractive to good head coaches. Because they have good head coaches they are often good. Because they are often good, free agents want to play there.
  
  How often do you see a top flight free agent sign with a last place team?
• Laley23

  

  jordo212000;594820 wrote:Seriously. Teams are competing every year. You'd think the Yankees and Red Sox have won every single World Series since 1985. They haven't. The freaking Giants played the Rangers in the World Series.
  
  Small to mid-major markets can compete and win. They just need to develop because they can't blow $140 mill on a free agent. Oh and you are naive if you think that owners "can't" spend big money on free agents. The majority do not because they don't want to dip into their wallet. What do you think these guys are buying teams with? Monopoly money?

  
  They arent competing every year. A DIFFERENT small market team competes every year, where the Yanks and Sox compete EVERY year. There is a HUGE difference. The Twins, are the only franchise that has successfully competed year in year out.
  
  BTW, as posted above, the Giants arent small market. They are top 10 in payroll at over 100 million (will be 115 this year I would guess).
• Hb31187

  

  The reality is, when The Yanks and Sox have 20348903 million more dollars to throw at players than other teams (not because the teams are stingy, but because those teams have a legacy, a giant following and many many more sources of revenue than the smallers teams) It makes it hard for smaller teams to compete constantly. Why do you think every other major sport has a salary cap?
• jordo212000

  

  Laley23;594829 wrote: BTW, as posted above, the Giants arent small market. They are top 10 in payroll at over 100 million (will be 115 this year I would guess).

  
  Ok? What about the Rangers then?
• Laley23

  

  jordo212000;594834 wrote:Ok? What about the Rangers then?

  
  Yes, the Rangers are small payroll. What did I say? Small payroll teams compete every year, but its always different teams. They cant sustain the success (sans the Twins).
• jordo212000

  

  Hb31187;594831 wrote:1.The reality is, when The Yanks and Sox have 20348903 million more dollars to throw at players than other teams (not because the teams are stingy, but because those teams have a legacy, a giant following and many many more sources of revenue than the smallers teams) It makes it hard for smaller teams to compete constantly. 2. Why do you think every other major sport has a salary cap?

  
  1. As said a million times already, the Yankees and Red Sox aren't winning it every year. Plenty of other teams have been making it.
  
  2. How is it working in the NBA? haha. You still won't answer that. The NBA has a salary cap, yet they have been worse at "parity."
• jordo212000

  

  Laley23;594837 wrote:Yes, the Rangers are small payroll. What did I say? Small payroll teams compete every year, but its always different teams. They cant sustain the success (sans the Twins).

  
  That my friend is the definition of parity. Thank you very much
• Laley23

  

  jordo212000;594840 wrote:That my friend is the definition of parity. Thank you very much

  
  In a way sure. But unlike the other sports, you literally have a 1-3 year window out of 10. Yankees and Sox have 10 out of 10. Its almost cyclical with the small teams as opposed to parity.
  
  Parity would be more like anyone in a given year has a chance for the playoffs, like the NFL. In the MLB, its a new team, but at the start of the year over half the team are eliminated because they just have no shot.
• jordo212000

  

  Laley23;594843 wrote: Parity would be more like anyone in a given year has a chance for the playoffs, like the NFL.

  
  Colts, Patriots, Steelers
• Laley23

  

  jordo212000;594848 wrote:Colts, Patriots, Steelers

  
  Ok? They havent done with over spending. They have done it with solid FA and mostly drafting.
  
  But you cant say that in the NFL most teams done have a shot at competing.
  
  I would say the only franchise that just has flat out never had a chance for the playoffs at the start of the year is the Lions.
• Laley23

  

  ...and BTW, I agree the owners could pony up and keep or sign players. But the fact is the DONT. Which is why I really think they need the Cap.
• jordo212000

  

  Laley23;594849 wrote:Ok? They havent done with over spending. They have done it with solid FA and mostly drafting.
  
  But you cant say that in the NFL most teams done have a shot at competing.
  
  I would say the only franchise that just has flat out never had a chance for the playoffs at the start of the year is the Lions.

  
  The point I was trying to make was that despite the fact that people want to have a parade in the streets for the NFL and its "parity", they still have the same issue as every other league. You have a few teams who always seem to have a stranglehold on the top of the division (Lakers, Yankees, Patriots) and at the same there are always going to be teams that can't seem to put it together (Clippers, Pirates, Lions)
  
  Just having a "salary cap" is no guarantee that your league will have parity -cough cough- NBA
• Laley23

  

  jordo212000;594870 wrote:The point I was trying to make was that despite the fact that people want to have a parade in the streets for the NFL and its "parity", they still have the same issue as every other league. You have a few teams who always seem to have a stranglehold on the top of the division (Lakers, Yankees, Patriots) and at the same there are always going to have teams that can't seem to put it together (Clippers, Pirates, Lions)
  
  Just having a "salary cap" is no guarantee that your league will have parity -cough cough- NBA

  
  I agree that it isnt a guarantee. But at least there is a better shot to level the playing field. It kind of forces the owners to spend.
• dave

  Laley23;594872 wrote:I agree that it isnt a guarantee. But at least there is a better shot to level the playing field. It kind of forces the owners to spend.

  
  so you want a floor not a cap.
• dave

  if you go look at the last 10 years of who played in the super bowl and who played in the world series i bet it will look very similar. if the nfl only had 6 divisions and 8 playoff teams mlb would have more parity than the nfl.
• Laley23

  

  The point I am trying to make is that in most sports you can draft and sign players and have sustained success and a realistic shot at a title and then you suck, and then the chance is back etc. In baseball, you can have at most 3 years chance it seems.
  
  Going to the NBA, you have teams that havent won anything in the last 10 years, but have had a shot most years (Jazz, Rockets, Mavericks, Cavs, Suns etc). The Thunder were bad, but through the draft they have the chance to compete for the next 10 years same with the Magic. You are able to build a team and keep that team. That is not the case in baseball.
  
  If you go to the NFL, it is the same. You have teams like that were bad, but now look to be able to compete for the long haul (Giants, Chargers, Saints, etc). There isnt a single team other than the Lions, and you can make a case for the Raiders (but they were good early and again late this decade) that doesnt appear to have promise going into a draft/year. The top teams have been there as you say (but via drafts not spending audacious amounts of money) but the others all have a realistic shot to get better and compete for lengths of time before their next downfall (Eagles, Rams, Vikings, etc).
  
  In baseball you have a ton of teams that get minor league talent and via for that 1-2 year window to compete....they simply cant sustain it.
• dave

  i see where you are coming from, i used to think that too.
  
  i'm sure some of these are wrong, but i don't think the browns, bengals, chiefs, raiders, bills, texans, jags, dolphins, redskins, lions, niners ever had a true shot at making the super bowl the last 10 years. to me it looks like you are selectively choosing teams for your arguement.
  
  in mlb orioles, blue jays, royals, mariners, nationals, brewers, pirates, padres, reds. maybe the A's and dodgers.
  
  nba and nhl are hard to do since half the teams make the playoffs but there will be more teams that never had a shot than the mlb list.
  
  in mlb you have control over players longer than any other sport. a couple great guys just can't make a team as much as other sports.
• darbypitcher22

  

  Boy The Rays have been decimated in the last couple of days
• Hb31187

  

  darbypitcher22;594945 wrote:Boy The Rays have been decimated in the last couple of days

  
  lol its what happens when you cant compete with the money others are throwin around.
  
  They have an outfielder to replace Crawford somewhat (Desmond Jennings, hes gonna be a beast i think) and Pena's defense will be missed more than his offense i think. Sure he hit quite a few Hr's but he struck out so many times it almost wasnt funny lol
• jordo212000

  

  You can draft players in baseball too. It's just that so many teams are so bad at doing it. If you look at the mid to small market teams having success, nearly all of them have found success with the help of the draft and their farm system. The ones that have struggled as of late (Pirates, Indians) have few players that they've developed in to good players.
• jordo212000

  

  Hb31187;594954 wrote:lol its what happens when you cant compete with the money others are throwin around.
  
  They have an outfielder to replace Crawford somewhat (Desmond Jennings, hes gonna be a beast i think) and Pena's defense will be missed more than his offense i think. Sure he hit quite a few Hr's but he struck out so many times it almost wasnt funny lol

  They struggle becausethe league/owner screwed the pooch by putting a team down there in the first place. Florida cares about Dolphin football and that's about it. Everybody else they only pay attention to when it is convenient
  
  Crawford is a good player, don't get me wrong, but he isn't worth that contract. And as HB mentioned, Jennings has been waiting in the wings. He should be Crawford 2.0. Pena hit below .200 this past season. He provided some pop but if they can get a more balanced player in there they'll be fine. Their pitching has remained mostly in tact and that is the main reason for their success
• like_that

  

  You are out of your mind if you think the current system in the MLB is good. There is a reason why less and less people are watching baseball these days. In order for a small market team to win, they must develop their young players, hope at least one or two of them turn into stars, and then hope the rest of the young players decide to have a good season in the same year. After the season is over, they need to sign one or two of their star players for a future run at the playoffs in 7 years. However signing their star players could set the franchise back if he doesn't pan out (see Travis Hafner). The yankees and red sox can afford to overpay a player and not have it work out (see pavano, and lowe). GTFO out with this "system" is fine bullshit. I assume you think if the Indians had the money to keep Lee and Sabathia they still wouldn't be successful?
  
  Also, quit brining up the NBA. The NBA is completely irrelevant. It's a cop out argument. It's like Obama bringing up Bush in order to defend himself. First of all you are assuming everyone in this thread is a fan of the NBA, which might not be true. Second of all the NBA is completely different than the MLB. The NBA at least has a salary cap, rookie salary structure, and they allow franchises to pay their star player the highest contract when he is a FA. If players leaves his team in the NBA, it's normally because he wants to go to a different and more glamorous city. NBA players also have more of a chance to land endorsement deals. As for the MLB, there is no salary cap, and if a player is going to leave his team, it is going to be because of $$$$$. Also, if the MLB player isn't named Derek Jeter, he is most likely not going to land an endorsement deal.
• Laley23

  

  dave;594940 wrote:i see where you are coming from, i used to think that too.
  
  i'm sure some of these are wrong, but i don't think the browns, bengals, chiefs, raiders, bills, texans, jags, dolphins, redskins, lions, niners ever had a true shot at making the super bowl the last 10 years. to me it looks like you are selectively choosing teams for your arguement.

  
  I purposefully left of the Browns and Texans because they are expansion, as well as Jags and I did forget about the Bills....
  
  But I completely disagree with Redskins (who spend money every year, just poorly), Dolphins, Niners, Bengals, Chiefs, Raiders.
  
  Maybe Super Bowl was a long shot, but playoffs certainly. In MLB, take a team like the Raiders....they would lose all their team after the season ended. These teams actually have hope going into a season more than 1-2 times every 10 years. Hell the Jags are winning the division this year after last place last year and made the playoffs just a few years ago. The Bengals were SB favorites in some eyes. Dolphins have had optimism a lot recently and won their division already under Sparano.
• jordo212000

  

  like_that;595168 wrote:You are out of your mind if you think the current system in the MLB is good. There is a reason why less and less people are watching baseball these days. In order for a small market team to win, they must develop their young players, hope at least one or two of them turn into stars, and then hope the rest of the young players decide to have a good season in the same year. After the season is over, they need to sign one or two of their star players for a future run at the playoffs in 7 years. However signing their star players could set the franchise back if he doesn't pan out (see Travis Hafner). The yankees and red sox can afford to overpay a player and not have it work out (see pavano, and lowe). GTFO out with this "system" is fine bullshit. I assume you think if the Indians had the money to keep Lee and Sabathia they still wouldn't be successful?
  
  Also, quit brining up the NBA. The NBA is completely irrelevant. It's a cop out argument. It's like Obama bringing up Bush in order to defend himself. First of all you are assuming everyone in this thread is a fan of the NBA, which might not be true. Second of all the NBA is completely different than the MLB. The NBA at least has a salary cap, rookie salary structure, and they allow franchises to pay their star player the highest contract when he is a FA. If players leaves his team in the NBA, it's normally because he wants to go to a different and more glamorous city. NBA players also have more of a chance to land endorsement deals. As for the MLB, there is no salary cap, and if a player is going to leave his team, it is going to be because of $$$$$. Also, if the MLB player isn't named Derek Jeter, he is most likely not going to land an endorsement deal.

  
  Why can't I use the NBA as a comparison? Because it kills your argument? haha. MLB is fine, sure the NFL is kicking their butt, but the NFL is kicking everybody's butt. Major League Baseball isn't the pro sport going broke though. That would be the NBA. You know, the league with the salary cap that has less parity than baseball. Go look at the Pirates financial statements, the league is doing just fine.
  
  Don't confuse the Indians situation with teams around the league. Ownership and management is inept. Nobody said they had to get rid of Cliff Lee a year before his contract was up. And nobody told them that if they were going to trade him, they had to pick 4 prospects who will probably never do anything at the major league level. They also didn't have to trade Brandon Phillips to the Reds for a guy who is now working at Citgo. The fact is, their owner is extremely wealthy, if you truly believe that they "can't afford" to give their best players 12-15 million a year then I have some beach property in Nebraska for you. Certain small market teams would rather act like they are trying to win, but they only want to pad their wallets.
  
  I agree that the NBA does a better job marketing their stars, baseball has been horrible at that. I'm not sure what your point is with this though. We're talking about parity. Over and over again I have brought up that the MLB does no worse at "parity" than any other sport. In fact it does better than the NBA. Just because your favorite team (Indians) routinely gets their pants taken down in trades and does nothing to try and compete... doesn't mean that the system is broken. Look around the league. The Mariners have broken the bank for the past couple of years and they suck.
• Riderfan

  gotta keep up with the Yanks