LogFAQs > #964202734

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, Database 10 ( 02.17.2022-12-01-2022 ), DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Can someone tell me why so many users on here hate baseball
Allanon23 04/11/22 2:56:02 PM #87:	Star Ocean 3 posted... You just highlighted what's great about no salary cap without realizing it. It encourages teams to spend and be competitive. The Padres floundered for years and have only recently become serious about winning. It's good for their city, good for the NL West, and for baseball in general when teams try to win. Every team should be in an arms race, and they're all capable of it. That's kind of the point of having a sports league with teams competing against each other. No they fucking aren't lmfao. Who can outspend the Dodgers with that Spectrum deal? Or the Yankees with the YES network? Who can outspend the Clippers with that Balmer money? This is the most batshit thing I've ever read. David Tepper of the Panthers could own the entirety of the city of Green Bay if he wanted to and you think every team is capable of competing without a cap? Star Ocean 3 posted... Well, just revenue sharing. There are no small markets in the NFL, cap or not, and if your team drafts well and extends their players, they'll remain competitive. No, it's because of the cap. Otherwise everyone would end up signing with the NY Giants or Jets. The Rams were able to bring in a lot of vets for cheap, but they can't be competitive long because of that. Players will leave and get paid what they are worth. Star Ocean 3 posted... Tell that to Lebron James in his prime. He was getting paid nowhere close to his worth. False. He was getting paid hundreds of millions in endorsement money. It goes without saying that a superstar, generational player will still get paid what they are worth even when operating under a salary cap. Michael Jordan famously made over 100% of the teams salary cap one year. The NBA has a flexible system with Bird Rights and shit to get over the soft cap and pay a heavy luxury tax. Star Ocean 3 posted... Punishing teams that draft well and develop superstar players is not a good thing! The LA Lakers have three max contract players. The Milwaukee Bucks have 3 as well. A well run organization can still keep their players, it just gets to a point where once you have TOO much you need to make some sacrifices. Will there be some circumstances where a team can't keep a Tyreek Hill or Jaire Alexander? Yes. However, that is a MUCH better outcome than a team buying out all of the top talent and concentrating it in the big cities like what baseball is running into with the Dodgers and ran into in the late 90s with the Yankees. --- Attention campers, lunch has been cancelled today due to lack of hustle. Deal with it. Current LP: Grandia HD Remaster <cite>Allanon23 posted [p:964202734] in Can someon... [t:79979659]...</cite> <quote>Star Ocean 3 posted... </cite> <quote>You just highlighted what's great about no salary cap without realizing it. It encourages teams to spend and be competitive. The Padres floundered for years and have only recently become serious about winning. It's good for their city, good for the NL West, and for baseball in general when teams try to win. Every team should be in an arms race, and they're all capable of it. That's kind of the point of having a sports league with teams competing against each other.</quote> No they fucking aren't lmfao. Who can outspend the Dodgers with that Spectrum deal? Or the Yankees with the YES network? Who can outspend the Clippers with that Balmer money? This is the most batshit thing I've ever read. David Tepper of the Panthers could own the entirety of the city of Green Bay if he wanted to and you think every team is capable of competing without a cap? Star Ocean 3 posted... </cite> <quote>Well, just revenue sharing. There are no small markets in the NFL, cap or not, and if your team drafts well and extends their players, they'll remain competitive.</quote> No, it's because of the cap. Otherwise everyone would end up signing with the NY Giants or Jets. The Rams were able to bring in a lot of vets for cheap, but they can't be competitive long because of that. Players will leave and get paid what they are worth. Star Ocean 3 posted... </cite> <quote>Tell that to Lebron James in his prime. He was getting paid nowhere close to his worth.</quote> False. He was getting paid hundreds of millions in endorsement money. It goes without saying that a superstar, generational player will still get paid what they are worth even when operating under a salary cap. Michael Jordan famously made over 100% of the teams salary cap one year. The NBA has a flexible system with Bird Rights and shit to get over the soft cap and pay a heavy luxury tax. Star Ocean 3 posted... </cite> <quote>Punishing teams that draft well and develop superstar players is not a good thing!</quote> The LA Lakers have three max contract players. The Milwaukee Bucks have 3 as well. A well run organization can still keep their players, it just gets to a point where once you have TOO much you need to make some sacrifices. Will there be some circumstances where a team can't keep a Tyreek Hill or Jaire Alexander? Yes. However, that is a MUCH better outcome than a team buying out all of the top talent and concentrating it in the big cities like what baseball is running into with the Dodgers and ran into in the late 90s with the Yankees. --- Attention campers, lunch has been cancelled today due to lack of hustle. Deal with it. Current LP: Grandia HD Remaster</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1