OT do you think MLB will step in and break up the Philadelphia Phillies??
- Thread starter sluggo72
- Start date
No, despite their recent success, I think the Phillies will do that on their own.
Seriously, I am happy to see them on a hot streak. They certainly have lots of fans here and some day, before I die, I would like to see the Pirates and Phillies play for a shot at the World Series. Damn, that would be fun.
That would be awesome! It won't be this year, however... at least from the Phillies perspective. Even if their offense stays better, I'm not sure that they have the pitching to win consistently.
phillies will win a world series before the pirates do. book it. pirates have won 0 since 1979. phillies have won 2.
hey, that's what cialis is for..I think we Pirates fans are an older group. We can't raise it like we used to.
Ah, but the Bucs have 5 total, while the Phillies, despite being an older franchise, have but 2.
Well, certainly the Bucs win in 79' is as relevant as the Phillies in 80', but actually, none of what happened before this year is relevant today, at least not to me. I've seen the Bucs play in 3 World Series, attending games in all 3, and yet I was never personally at a game where they clinched it. That is something that would be relevant, and memorable, for me.yea, because what happened in 1930 is really relevant today
Don't know. But they may send some of their fans out to Texas to help out with the biker wars....
NO IT'S NOT. 1980 IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DECADE!!!
i'm being a little sarcastic, but yeah. just the way baseball works without a salary cap, it's very difficult to sustain success in such a small market. you can pop up every once in a while (a la the Rays, Royals, etc (who btw didn't win)) but the economics at work will dictate that the phillies have a better chance to win one before the buccos do. it stinks how MLB is the only one without a salary cap.
they don't have a hard cap. however, a statement like that doesn't give an accurate evaluation of the situation. There is a salary limit. Anything spent on salaries above that limit generates a salary tax for the team, so that they pay MLB a dollar for every dollar they spend over the limit.
In addition, MLB has made other changes to even up the playing field a bit. The rich teams use to be able to draft all kinds of top HS talent in the lower rounds, and then throw much higher signing bonuses at them than would be warranted for the round in which they were picked. Now, each team has a set amount that can be spent on draft picks. If they want to overspend on a lower round pick, they can do that, but it reduces what they have to offer for their other picks, and will likely screw their chances of signing some of their high draft picks.
The international market can still be dominated by the rich teams (generally bigger markets), but there have been some limits placed on what can be spent on talent from some countries. The rules here are somewhat complicated, so I'll simply leave it at my previous sentence.
I think MLB can improve the situation even more. That said, it's a little bit apples and oranges when comparing MLB to other major sports. There are so many games in a MLB season that teams get more from their local contracts than they do from national contracts. It's pretty hard to force revenue sharing on money in a situation like that.
Tom, I understand that and thanks for bringing that up. However, the point I'm making is that the big market teams can and do spend a TON more than the small markets like Pittsburgh. Money and success have a general positive correlation/trend over time. It's insanely difficult to sustain long-term top tier success in any sport, but it's even more difficult to do it as a small market club in MLB. It's not a level playing field like the NFL, NBA, and NHL are. It's not even close.
St. Louis television market is a tiny bit bigger than Pittsburgh (not by much at all) but they have been able to do it, but are clearly an isolated data point. However, St. Louis is paying like $35M-$40M more in payroll than Pittsburgh. I wish it were a more level playing field than it currently is.
A disgustingly rich owner should not be able to buy championships in any sport, like they can do, or come pretty damn close to doing in baseball.
The Dogers payroll this year is $272M. Then you have some teams' payrolls under $70M. Now you didn't go all the way to call it a "level playing field" but it's not even close to a level playing field.
Last edited:
