Yankee's lose (again) - re Salary Cap

[DementedReality]

I thought the Yankee's and MLB were the poster boy for why the cap is good for hte NHL. Isnt is argued that without a cap, the NHL would turn into MLB and the NHL Yankee's would always win?

The MLB Yankee's cant even win, despite an all star (or former all star) at each position.

Further proof, letting teams spend 200m on a roster does nothing to enhance their chances of winning.

[daveyboy]

Go Tigers Go!

The Yankess got outpitched hardcore today.

WHen you spend 200M, anything less then the World Series is considered a failure. When your any team but the Yankess (and maybe the old Braves) just making the post-season is considered a victory.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

I thought the Yankee's and MLB were the poster boy for why the cap is good for hte NHL. Isnt is argued that without a cap, the NHL would turn into MLB and the NHL Yankee's would always win?

The MLB Yankee's cant even win, despite an all star (or former all star) at each position.

Further proof, letting teams spend 200m on a roster does nothing to enhance their chances of winning.

In order to win it all, you have to make the playoffs. A much more difficult proposition in baseball than hockey.

The Yankees have made the playoffs the last 12 years. Coincidence?

No.

The salary cap works. Give it up already.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by transplant99

In order to win it all, you have to make the playoffs. A much more difficult proposition in baseball than hockey.

The Yankees have made the playoffs the last 12 years. Coincidence?

No.

The salary cap works. Give it up already.

thanks , i dont want to give it up, i enjoy the debate.

i always believed that in the NHL, due to 16 teams making it (vs 8 in MLB) that the NYR spending 80m really didnt impact the ability of those teams who only spent 30m to a) make it to the playoffs and b) to make an impact.

despite the fact that my position is supported by historical facts, people still use the example of the Yankee's and Rangerss as good reasons for the cap.

yet, when looking at NHL history, NYR, PHI and TOR have but one final between them compared to a finals visit for CRL (2), TBY, BUD, CGY, ANA, and WSH.

seems to me the parity in the NHL was just fine and the story that payroll disparity was "unfair" was simply scare tactics.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The salary cap works. Give it up already.

I'll echo that.

I'll take a salary cap league over a non-salary cap league any day of the week.

Thought it was kind of strange the original poster didn't bring up the fact that the NFL is the most successful pro league in North America and it has a cap.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I'll echo that.

I'll take a salary cap league over a non-salary cap league any day of the week.

Thought it was kind of strange the original poster didn't bring up the fact that the NFL is the most successful pro league in North America and it has a cap.

the success of the NHL has more to do with its perfect blend of schedule (for gamblers) and TV contract, which is fueled by its perfect gambling draw.

the cap is not the reason the NFL is succesful.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

the cap is not the reason the NFL is succesful.

It's not the only reason, but it's a fairly major factor.

I've had many, many friends of mine over the past few years say they enjoy watching football over baseball much more because of the cap. If you're a Jays fan, you're only hope is for Toronto to grab a wild card spot, because you know the Yanks or Boston will win the division..........especially the Yanks, since they buy their solutions to their problems.

But if you enjoy the non-cap sports, knock yourself out.

[Resolute 14]

Fact is, if the Yankees were held to a salary cap, they would be battling the Devil Rays for dead last.

The Yankees are actually the perfect example of why a salary cap is a good thing: When you have an unlimited budget, you can buy your way out of your own mistakes. You can cover your incompetence by paying the highest priced player available.

This has been the Yankees MO for a decade now. Feel free to look up their overall record in that time.

[phaneuf_train]

This aint na hockey talk ya herd
________
Side Effects Of Wellbutrin

[White Snow Bear]

Well, the Yankees have 4 championships in the past 10 years, so to say they are losers is ridiculous. Teams can spend what they want in MLB, but never will spend like the Yankees because the Yankee fanbase is the most hardcore fanbase in all of sports and the city/fans/media starve for big name players and championships, so the owner must do what it takes to bring in high profiled players and try to win championships because it is the most renouned franchise in the world, it HAS to compete. Yankees in NY, is like Flames in Calgary X1000000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7IWJ2xmdkU

[MJK]

I don't see what there is to argue about here? The NFL is exciting to watch every year becuase a new team can step it up at anytime. The NHL is now exciting to watch becuase teams are all on even playing fields. Just look at the West and see how many possible playoff teams there are...a lot!

Baseball is not the same at all. The Yanks spend all kinds of money and they are always one of the best teams. They don't win every year but they have still won MANY times. It gets boring for the fans.

I love the cap and am glad to see it working!

[habernac]

comparing the Rangers and the Yankees is pretty funny as well. About the only two things they have in common is that they're in New York and have big salaries.

[Flame On]

If all the other teams only were 30m then that would be fine. But several weren't and were driving prices up for players and the 30m teams were having to compete with that signing power, which they were unable to do.
It's not all about the on ice team either. The owners were continuously losing money and had a crazy notion as business men that they'd like a smidgeon of profit and have secured themselves known budgets to work towards that.

[pepper24]

Baseball is gay and why is this under Flames talk after a hard fought win?

[I_H8_Crawford]

yeah everything is perfect in MLB - tell that to the Royals, I'm sure one day they can make the playoffs for 12 straight years with a payroll equal to that of A-Rod's salary alone....

[JiriHrdina]

Moved to the other sports forum.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

thanks , i dont want to give it up, i enjoy the debate.

i always believed that in the NHL, due to 16 teams making it (vs 8 in MLB) that the NYR spending 80m really didnt impact the ability of those teams who only spent 30m to a) make it to the playoffs and b) to make an impact.

despite the fact that my position is supported by historical facts, people still use the example of the Yankee's and Rangerss as good reasons for the cap.

yet, when looking at NHL history, NYR, PHI and TOR have but one final between them compared to a finals visit for CRL (2), TBY, BUD, CGY, ANA, and WSH.

seems to me the parity in the NHL was just fine and the story that payroll disparity was "unfair" was simply scare tactics.

Taking a sample of which teams get to the finals is simply a poor means of analysis. I'd be more intersted to see a analsyis of overall winning percentage of teams in relation to size of payroll. If you can prove through that means that there is no relationship I listen to that argument, otherwise your dealing with the wrong data. The success of a team over 82 games (or in MLB 162 games) is a much more meaningful basis to look at this then "who gets to the final".

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Taking a sample of which teams get to the finals is simply a poor means of analysis. I'd be more intersted to see a analsyis of overall winning percentage of teams in relation to size of payroll. If you can prove through that means that there is no relationship I listen to that argument, otherwise your dealing with the wrong data. The success of a team over 82 games (or in MLB 162 games) is a much more meaningful basis to look at this then "who gets to the final".

i happen to think comparing payroll to winning percentage is a poor means of analysis as well. considering that if you have a good team (ie win alot) you will have good players and therefore be required to pay them as such.

i disagree that whether you make it to the finals is a poor look into the results of a team. who cares if you win 50 games or 30 games, all that matters in pro sports is if you win your last (playoff) game.

by that measure, the money spent by PHI, TOR and NYR (as three of the biggest spenders) gave them no more advantage than teams that build differently (ie BUF, WSH, ANA, TBY and CRL).

i say, let NYR blow their money, it gives them ZERO advantage and history has proven me correct. i see nothing wrong with them having an 80m payroll and CRL having a 25m payroll, as it created no advantage for NYR.

anyhow, i know the battle is lost, i just wanted to show further real life proof that money doesnt buy championships, yet most people still want to live in hypothetical world, despite the evidence proving me correct over and over again.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i happen to think comparing payroll to winning percentage is a poor means of analysis as well. considering that if you have a good team (ie win alot) you will have good players and therefore be required to pay them as such.

In other words: In order to win, you have to spend a ton of money. That is a very self defeating argument.

i disagree that whether you make it to the finals is a poor look into the results of a team. who cares if you win 50 games or 30 games, all that matters in pro sports is if you win your last (playoff) game.

Of course you disagree. To agree would also defeat your argument.

by that measure, the money spent by PHI, TOR and NYR (as three of the biggest spenders) gave them no more advantage than teams that build differently (ie BUF, WSH, ANA, TBY and CRL).

I like how you mention all of the small market teams that came out of nowhere to make the finals once, while only mentioning the large market teams that didnt. Why do you ignore the Stars, the Avs and the Red Wings, hmmmm? Perhaps because it defeats your argument?

Take those five small spending teams (and it is charitable to put Washington into this group), and add Calgary as a freebie and match them up agianst the six big spending teams: Toronto, Philly, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas and New York (I'll even give you this team). Now tell me how many times each group made the playoffs in the last CBA. How many times each group made the finals. How many times each group won the Cup.

i say, let NYR blow their money, it gives them ZERO advantage and history has proven me correct. i see nothing wrong with them having an 80m payroll and CRL having a 25m payroll, as it created no advantage for NYR.

No amount of money can overcome gross incompetence. One team that spent a decade making horrible decisions does not prove your point.

What about Detroit? Colorado? Dallas? Hmmmm?

anyhow, i know the battle is lost, i just wanted to show further real life proof that money doesnt buy championships, yet most people still want to live in hypothetical world, despite the evidence proving me correct over and over again.

Actually, the evidence proves you wrong over and over again. You simply choose to ignore anything that opposes your cause. A terrible debate strategy, as it only makes you look like a fool.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

...as it only makes you look like a fool.

no need to resort to name calling.

Denver Colorado and East Rutherford New Jersey are hardly BIG markets.

anyhow, i didnt mention DAL, DET and COL mainly because they didnt really buy their team, they drafted for their assets and supplemented by trading those assets for players. hardly hurting the team trading the star player, unless you consider the Flames hurt by the aquisition of Regehr and Iginla.

i didnt say you need to spend to win, i said winning causes you to spend. i suppose both of us can claim a circular argument.

i bring up those small market teams as PROOF that you dont need to be a big spender to get to the finals. why is it discounted when season after season under the old CBA a small market (and often multiple small market teams) would make it to the final 4 and defeat large market expensive teams along the way?

Toronto, Philly, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas and New York = 9 final appearances if i am not mistaken and 6 cups

WSH, CGY, TBY, CRL, ANA, and BUF = 6 final appearances and 1 cup.

close enough if you ask me, especially when you consider the argument that these markets have NO CHANCE according to most.

take out the good drafting teams like COL, DET and DAL and there are ZERO final appearances for those big markets. this doesnt prove that money alone does NOTHING to enhance a teams chances?

i didnt even count NJD, as they really should be condidered a small market but then i would be accused of skewing the results.