STLtoday.com Forums
https://interact.stltoday.com/forums/
https://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1517830
You are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
Pittsburgh and KC have never averaged 35k. They reached 30 k twice. Maybe instead of a salary cap we eliminate 6 teams.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
Maybe Pittsburgh and KC would draw more if they could win more?makesnosense wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 06:38 amPittsburgh and KC have never averaged 35k. They reached 30 k twice. Maybe instead of a salary cap we eliminate 6 teams.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
Baseball fans constantly quote football as a model. Certainly there is more competitive balance but in the end the NFL draft is the great equalizer. Hardly any free agents in football make enormous differences because they are not available until they are much older. Can you imagine one of the young stud QB’s being a free agent in football today? Not a chance. So if you don’t draft a QB in round one there is a high likelihood you won’t be competitive until you do. Sure there occasional exceptions but that’s not the rule.Red Bird Classic wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 21:58 pmYou are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
I agree that a cap is a good idea. But people constantly get this wrong. A cap by itself will never work even if the players agreed to it which they never would.
You have to have revenue sharing first. Or at least concurrently.
What could save baseball is real revenue sharing like the NFL and a cap/floor system again like the NFL.
History has proved that this is not true. Although it appears shown that attendance does spike when the Dodgers visit these stadiums.cardstatman wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 07:18 amMaybe Pittsburgh and KC would draw more if they could win more?makesnosense wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 06:38 amPittsburgh and KC have never averaged 35k. They reached 30 k twice. Maybe instead of a salary cap we eliminate 6 teams.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
In the seasons they win (or the following season), they draw 2.5 million fans. It just rarely happens.makesnosense wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 07:53 amHistory has proved that this is not true. Although it appears shown that attendance does spike when the Dodgers visit these stadiums.cardstatman wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 07:18 amMaybe Pittsburgh and KC would draw more if they could win more?makesnosense wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 06:38 amPittsburgh and KC have never averaged 35k. They reached 30 k twice. Maybe instead of a salary cap we eliminate 6 teams.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
Exactly. Attendance not an issue in small markets in the NFL. See Kansas City, Indianapolis, Buffalo, etc.cardstatman wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 07:18 amMaybe Pittsburgh and KC would draw more if they could win more?makesnosense wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 06:38 amPittsburgh and KC have never averaged 35k. They reached 30 k twice. Maybe instead of a salary cap we eliminate 6 teams.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
I agree on your conclusions of the Cardinals. We are currently a bad organization. I hope Bloom can help, but this malaise goes all the way up to the DeWitts.Hofikebrucee wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 07:51 amBaseball fans constantly quote football as a model. Certainly there is more competitive balance but in the end the NFL draft is the great equalizer. Hardly any free agents in football make enormous differences because they are not available until they are much older. Can you imagine one of the young stud QB’s being a free agent in football today? Not a chance. So if you don’t draft a QB in round one there is a high likelihood you won’t be competitive until you do. Sure there occasional exceptions but that’s not the rule.Red Bird Classic wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 21:58 pmYou are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
I agree that a cap is a good idea. But people constantly get this wrong. A cap by itself will never work even if the players agreed to it which they never would.
You have to have revenue sharing first. Or at least concurrently.
What could save baseball is real revenue sharing like the NFL and a cap/floor system again like the NFL.
The talk of competitive balance would be hard to make if you live in Las Vegas, Miami, Cleveland, NY, Chicago, Nashville, Houston, Phoenix, Washington, New Orleans. Poorly operated teams are just that. That’s 1/3 of the league! 1/3 of the league is mid tier and only slightly better than the lower tier. The top tier really has about four or five teams that have a shot at a championship. So about 15-20% of the league has a true shot. Extended playoffs provide the illusion that anyone in can win. At least baseball provides a bit more of an opportunity if a team who sneaks in can get hit at the right time. That almost never happens in football. In football talent dictates results.
Cards fans on here moan about how unfair it all is but the truth is the organization just isn’t a good one. For hell sakes, even Milwaukee is a better franchise with more recent success. And more recent success is what matters. Not all of the championships from the 1940’s, 1960’s, 1980’s. Not even from the 2000’s. The game and the business has changed too much. Living on the past is nostalgic but not helpful here.
The organization SUCKS. If not, it would be competitive. Period. That’s not money. That’s due to a bad organization.
And in those years they didn't come close to 35k fans per game. So there is no reason to believe they suddenly would. But I guess that's the Dodgers fault .cardstatman wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 07:59 amIn the seasons they win (or the following season), they draw 2.5 million fans. It just rarely happens.makesnosense wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 07:53 amHistory has proved that this is not true. Although it appears shown that attendance does spike when the Dodgers visit these stadiums.cardstatman wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 07:18 amMaybe Pittsburgh and KC would draw more if they could win more?makesnosense wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 06:38 amPittsburgh and KC have never averaged 35k. They reached 30 k twice. Maybe instead of a salary cap we eliminate 6 teams.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
One 90 win season since 1989 for Kansas City.
Two 90 wins seasons since 1992 for Pittsburgh.
peterman'srealitytour wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 08:09 amExactly. Attendance not an issue in small markets in the NFL. See Kansas City, Indianapolis, Buffalo, etc.cardstatman wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 07:18 amMaybe Pittsburgh and KC would draw more if they could win more?makesnosense wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 06:38 amPittsburgh and KC have never averaged 35k. They reached 30 k twice. Maybe instead of a salary cap we eliminate 6 teams.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
Why? Because salary cap allows those teams equal chance at obtaining and retaining talent. Teams that win championships win because they are better run operations not because they can outspend the competition.
Does anyone really think Patrick Mahomes would still be with Kansas City if NFL had baseball model? A New York or LA team would have bought and paid for him years ago. What do you think Arrowhead Stadium looks like on a Sunday when their team has no chance at winning a Superbowl?
save baseball? - it's alive and well buddy!Red Bird Classic wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 21:58 pmYou are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
I agree that a cap is a good idea. But people constantly get this wrong. A cap by itself will never work even if the players agreed to it which they never would.
You have to have revenue sharing first. Or at least concurrently.
What could save baseball is real revenue sharing like the NFL and a cap/floor system again like the NFL.
It’s alive and well in two places: big markets where you can buy a championship and with some fans of small market teams that really don’t care if their team ever wins a championship.dugoutrex wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 09:40 amsave baseball? - it's alive and well buddy!Red Bird Classic wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 21:58 pmYou are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
I agree that a cap is a good idea. But people constantly get this wrong. A cap by itself will never work even if the players agreed to it which they never would.
You have to have revenue sharing first. Or at least concurrently.
What could save baseball is real revenue sharing like the NFL and a cap/floor system again like the NFL.
attendance up for 3 straight years and the best World Series in decades says otherwise buddy!peterman'srealitytour wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 12:45 pmIt’s alive and well in two places: big markets where you can buy a championship and with some fans of small market teams that really don’t care if their team ever wins a championship.dugoutrex wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025 09:40 amsave baseball? - it's alive and well buddy!Red Bird Classic wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 21:58 pmYou are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.RamFan08NY wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025 20:41 pmBack in the 80s, and there were only 4 teams making the Superbowl year after year (SF, Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburg), those teams weren't "good for football". They had deeper pickets than everyone else. Then the NFL sharpened up, and the salary cap was born. Thats what made the NFL the success it is today.
I dont know how The Dodgers being the destination for every top FA is "good for baseball".
They may be good for the players, because it forces teams to overpay for 3rd rate free agents in hopes to keep up .
The Didgers have the highest paid pitcher in the game, and the highest paid position player in the game. And, that position player is only costing them 2 mil per year at present time.
Imo, the Dodgers are good for the players, and good for Dodger fans. I dont see how they benefit the success of the sport, other than world series viewers who want to watch Ohtani play, while rooting against the Dodgers.
We all know what would be good for baseball, and that's 35k fans filling parks in Pittsburg, KC, St. Louis, like they did years ago. A salary cap would do that. It worked for the NFL.
I agree that a cap is a good idea. But people constantly get this wrong. A cap by itself will never work even if the players agreed to it which they never would.
You have to have revenue sharing first. Or at least concurrently.
What could save baseball is real revenue sharing like the NFL and a cap/floor system again like the NFL.
Pretty much sucks otherwise ….buddy!