Do you respect the Dodgers?

[Red Bird Classic]

Yes. They are great for baseball.

Back 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.

You are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.

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.

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.

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.

Sure their are dynasties in the NFL. Some team gets the best coaches and some well-drafted players and they might win 3 or 4 titles. But the point, and this is critical, is they don't have to be big markets to build great teams.

Look at the cities on your list of non-competitive teams: New York, Chicago, Houston, Washington. Big markets with lots of money to spend. But teams from these cities don't dominate the NFL because of revenue sharing and the salary cap.

The dominate team in the last decade has been Kansas City, one of the smallest markets in the league. Green bay, Pittsburg, and Baltimore (all small markets) have all had runs where they won multiple titles. That just doesn't happen in baseball because the revenue of big markets teams is two and a half times that of small markets.

If all other things are equal, the team with the best organization wins, the NFL is proof of that, but in baseball all other things are not equal. That's the point.

[Red Bird Classic]

Yes. They are great for baseball.

Back 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.

You are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.

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.

save baseball? - it's alive and well buddy!

If the current system isn't reformed to create greater competitive balance which allows smaller markets to compete with big markets, baseball will end up on history's scrap heap with gladiators and dog racing.

[12xu]

I respect their organization's commitment to winning, and the talented players they have developed and acquired. I resent the huge advantage they have due to their ability to spend more than most of the rest of the league.

[peterman'srealitytour]

Yes. They are great for baseball.

Back 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.

You are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.

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.

save baseball? - it's alive and well buddy!

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.

Pretty much sucks otherwise ….buddy!

attendance up for 3 straight years and the best World Series in decades says otherwise buddy!

You mean that World Series between the #2 payroll and #5 payroll team? That one? Last year #1 and #2. Yeah, that’s a lot of fun… buddy.

[dugoutrex]

Yes. They are great for baseball.

Back 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.

You are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.

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.

save baseball? - it's alive and well buddy!

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.

Pretty much sucks otherwise ….buddy!

attendance up for 3 straight years and the best World Series in decades says otherwise buddy!

You mean that World Series between the #2 payroll and #5 payroll team? That one? Last year #1 and #2. Yeah, that’s a lot of fun… buddy.

yup - it was f'ing incredible Gumby!

[peterman'srealitytour]

Yes. They are great for baseball.

Back 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.

You are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.

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.

save baseball? - it's alive and well buddy!

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.

Pretty much sucks otherwise ….buddy!

attendance up for 3 straight years and the best World Series in decades says otherwise buddy!

You mean that World Series between the #2 payroll and #5 payroll team? That one? Last year #1 and #2. Yeah, that’s a lot of fun… buddy.

yup - it was f'ing incredible Gumby!

So glad you liked it. ‘Cause you’re gonna see the same those teams back again and again. Kinda works that way when you buy your way in. But hey, you enjoy… little man!

[dugoutrex]

Yes. They are great for baseball.

Back 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.

You are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.

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.

save baseball? - it's alive and well buddy!

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.

Pretty much sucks otherwise ….buddy!

attendance up for 3 straight years and the best World Series in decades says otherwise buddy!

You mean that World Series between the #2 payroll and #5 payroll team? That one? Last year #1 and #2. Yeah, that’s a lot of fun… buddy.

yup - it was f'ing incredible Gumby!

So glad you liked it. ‘Cause you’re gonna see the same those teams back again and again. Kinda works that way when you buy your way in. But hey, you enjoy… little man!

I'd be fine with the Dodgers getting back there next year but I guess you will be crying like a little girl

[peterman'srealitytour]

Yes. They are great for baseball.

Back 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.

You are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.

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.

save baseball? - it's alive and well buddy!

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.

Pretty much sucks otherwise ….buddy!

attendance up for 3 straight years and the best World Series in decades says otherwise buddy!

You mean that World Series between the #2 payroll and #5 payroll team? That one? Last year #1 and #2. Yeah, that’s a lot of fun… buddy.

yup - it was f'ing incredible Gumby!

So glad you liked it. ‘Cause you’re gonna see the same those teams back again and again. Kinda works that way when you buy your way in. But hey, you enjoy… little man!

I'd be fine with the Dodgers getting back there next year but I guess you will be crying like a little girl

Of course you’re fine with it, little man. What little Dodger fan wouldn’t be? Now, be careful and don’t wear that Dodger cap at recess. Last time you did that two of those little girls kicked your @$$.

[Hofikebrucee]

Yes. They are great for baseball.

Back 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.

You are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.

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.

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.

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.

Sure their are dynasties in the NFL. Some team gets the best coaches and some well-drafted players and they might win 3 or 4 titles. But the point, and this is critical, is they don't have to be big markets to build great teams.

Look at the cities on your list of non-competitive teams: New York, Chicago, Houston, Washington. Big markets with lots of money to spend. But teams from these cities don't dominate the NFL because of revenue sharing and the salary cap.

The dominate team in the last decade has been Kansas City, one of the smallest markets in the league. Green bay, Pittsburg, and Baltimore (all small markets) have all had runs where they won multiple titles. That just doesn't happen in baseball because the revenue of big markets teams is two and a half times that of small markets.

If all other things are equal, the team with the best organization wins, the NFL is proof of that, but in baseball all other things are not equal. That's the point.

Understand your point.

To be clearer there are small market teams competing. Seattle, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cincinnati, and recently Phoenix, Tampa in spite of how awful that market really is. Anyone one those could have gotten white hot and run the table as the cards did years ago. The point odd we can’t just believe the disparity is about money alone. Good orgs compete. Bad ones don’t no matter how much they spend

[Red Bird Classic]

Yes. They are great for baseball.

Back 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.

You are ignoring the fact that the NFL already had revenue sharing before they enacted a salary cap.

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.

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.

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.

Sure their are dynasties in the NFL. Some team gets the best coaches and some well-drafted players and they might win 3 or 4 titles. But the point, and this is critical, is they don't have to be big markets to build great teams.

Look at the cities on your list of non-competitive teams: New York, Chicago, Houston, Washington. Big markets with lots of money to spend. But teams from these cities don't dominate the NFL because of revenue sharing and the salary cap.

The dominate team in the last decade has been Kansas City, one of the smallest markets in the league. Green bay, Pittsburg, and Baltimore (all small markets) have all had runs where they won multiple titles. That just doesn't happen in baseball because the revenue of big markets teams is two and a half times that of small markets.

If all other things are equal, the team with the best organization wins, the NFL is proof of that, but in baseball all other things are not equal. That's the point.

Understand your point.

To be clearer there are small market teams competing. Seattle, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cincinnati, and recently Phoenix, Tampa in spite of how awful that market really is. Anyone one those could have gotten white hot and run the table as the cards did years ago. The point odd we can’t just believe the disparity is about money alone. Good orgs compete. Bad ones don’t no matter how much they spend

Do we really want a situation where a small market team has to get "white hot" to win a championship?

That kind of luck may only come around once or twice a century, while a team like the Dodgers might win 5 World Championships in 10 or 20 years. And that's even if other organizations are smarter or run better. (All that money covers up a lot of mistakes.)

If we had a more even playing field, then competition between organizations becomes the key, teams like the Royals and Pirates might build dynasties like the Chiefs and Steelers. But in baseball only the Dodgers, Yankees, and other big market teams can build dynasties.

That's a problem, because in the long term, fans aren't going to accept watching the Dodgers and Yankees win championships year after year, knowing that the team they follow has only that white-hot chance of breaking through.

Baseball fans are patient and loyal, but no one likes a game that's rigged if favor of someone else's favorite team.

[Poojols]

The Dodgers have Fangraph's third rated farm system (Cards are first). To be ranked that highly while the MLB team won back to back titles indicates a well-run organization. Sure, they throw around money but that is on top of a solid foundation.

Moreso it indicates having a lot of money. They buy 2 or 3 elite FA every year and due to that, have no real need to trade or promote a lot of their young guys.

[Pura Vida]

Or do you consider them simply a product of the most $$$ spent?

I do not believe the team deserves to be ranked as one of baseball's all-time best teams.

I simply consider them bought and paid for. Very similar to my thoughts on players who used steroids.

No respect.

Opti

No....they were ranked Top 5 payrolls and so was Toronto. There has to be some payroll caps or they will kill the sport.