Phil Hughes, very close to big league ready

[iknobaer]

dude, even 70 is too high. teams like the marlins, royals, a's, could NEVER keep it that high. sure, if they had to, they could get it that high for maybe one year, but, they would collapse. same with a team like arizona. you saw what happened to them after the WS win, they collapsed because of the money.40-115 would be my final offer.

 

[Jon_Vilma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iknobaer @ Feb 27 2007, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>dude, even 70 is too high. teams like the marlins, royals, a's, could NEVER keep it that high. sure, if they had to, they could get it that high for maybe one year, but, they would collapse. same with a team like arizona. you saw what happened to them after the WS win, they collapsed because of the money.40-115 would be my final offer.</div>A team is not competitive at 40. If you can't afford to compete in a business, then you go out of business.

 

[AdropOFvenom]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iknobaer @ Feb 27 2007, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>dude, even 70 is too high. teams like the marlins, royals, a's, could NEVER keep it that high. sure, if they had to, they could get it that high for maybe one year, but, they would collapse. same with a team like arizona. you saw what happened to them after the WS win, they collapsed because of the money.40-115 would be my final offer.</div>Any major league baseball franchise could operate at 70 million. They simply choose not to in order to draw a bigger profit. The Athletics spent 62 million last year, the Diamondbacks spent 59. The Marlins spent 60 million in 2005 before their recent firesale to attempt to draw up money for a new stadium. You're telling me those 3 teams couldn't hike up their payroll another 10-11 million from what it was factoring in inflation? If they don't have the money to field a team in their current market then they need to move elsewheres, not intentionally spend less money and field a non-competitive team in the process. That's the whole goal of a hard cap with both a minimum and maximum. To limit the spending of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs and to encourage the spending of the 'Small Market' teams that pocket millions of dollers a year from the likes of George Steinbrenner.

 

[DevinHester23]

[quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='85859' date='Feb 27 2007, 01:48 AM'][quote name='DevinHester23' post='85852' date='Feb 26 2007, 09:10 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='85845' date='Feb 26 2007, 09:15 PM'][quote name='DevinHester23' post='85837' date='Feb 26 2007, 06:37 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='85824' date='Feb 26 2007, 07:24 PM'][quote name='DevinHester23' post='85791' date='Feb 26 2007, 01:04 PM']I agree that MLB needs a hard cap. It's a joke when players make more than an entire team's payroll. When the Yankees played the Marlins last year, they had 7 players on their team making more than the entire payroll[/quote]That's not a cap problem, it's a minimum problem. The beauty of the NFL is the minimum. It forces every team to actually try and compete.A hard cap at 140 mil with a hard minimum at 90 would be perfect.[/quote]But the NFL has a ceiling, don't they?[/quote]Of course. But if not for the minimum, teams like the Vikings wouldn't compete. They literally had to reoganize contracts a couple years ago just to make it over the league minimum.[/quote]Well for baseball, they need a hard ceiling. What is the penalty in the NFL if you are over? You can't play? Is that what a hard cap is?[/quote]If you violate the hard cap in the NFL you lose draft picks.I agree the MLB needs a hard ceiling, they just also need a hard minimum. 90-140 would be fair. If you can't afford to field a team then perhaps you shouldn't be in the league eh?[/quote]That's not much of a penalty. 90-140 would not be fair Vilma. I think 50-120M is fair.

 

[DevinHester23]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ Feb 28 2007, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iknobaer @ Feb 27 2007, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>dude, even 70 is too high. teams like the marlins, royals, a's, could NEVER keep it that high. sure, if they had to, they could get it that high for maybe one year, but, they would collapse. same with a team like arizona. you saw what happened to them after the WS win, they collapsed because of the money.40-115 would be my final offer.</div>Any major league baseball franchise could operate at 70 million. They simply choose not to in order to draw a bigger profit. The Athletics spent 62 million last year, the Diamondbacks spent 59. The Marlins spent 60 million in 2005 before their recent firesale to attempt to draw up money for a new stadium. You're telling me those 3 teams couldn't hike up their payroll another 10-11 million from what it was factoring in inflation? If they don't have the money to field a team in their current market then they need to move elsewheres, not intentionally spend less money and field a non-competitive team in the process. That's the whole goal of a hard cap with both a minimum and maximum. To limit the spending of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs and to encourage the spending of the 'Small Market' teams that pocket millions of dollers a year from the likes of George Steinbrenner.</div>HEY!! Don't lump them as corrupt bastards who spend crazy money. We spend a lot, but we spend dumb. We could easily afford to spend more

 

[Jon_Vilma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Feb 28 2007, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ Feb 28 2007, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iknobaer @ Feb 27 2007, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>dude, even 70 is too high. teams like the marlins, royals, a's, could NEVER keep it that high. sure, if they had to, they could get it that high for maybe one year, but, they would collapse. same with a team like arizona. you saw what happened to them after the WS win, they collapsed because of the money.40-115 would be my final offer.</div>Any major league baseball franchise could operate at 70 million. They simply choose not to in order to draw a bigger profit. The Athletics spent 62 million last year, the Diamondbacks spent 59. The Marlins spent 60 million in 2005 before their recent firesale to attempt to draw up money for a new stadium. You're telling me those 3 teams couldn't hike up their payroll another 10-11 million from what it was factoring in inflation? If they don't have the money to field a team in their current market then they need to move elsewheres, not intentionally spend less money and field a non-competitive team in the process. That's the whole goal of a hard cap with both a minimum and maximum. To limit the spending of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs and to encourage the spending of the 'Small Market' teams that pocket millions of dollers a year from the likes of George Steinbrenner.</div>HEY!! Don't lump them as corrupt bastards who spend crazy money. We spend a lot, but we spend dumb. We could easily afford to spend more</div>That's not to be decided now, it's to be decided 3-5 years from now.

 

[AdropOFvenom]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Feb 28 2007, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>HEY!! Don't lump them as corrupt bastards who spend crazy money. We spend a lot, but we spend dumb. We could easily afford to spend more</div>That's not to be decided now, it's to be decided 3-5 years from now.</div>After this past offseason, the Cubs payroll is up at the point where they are spending 'crazy money'.....why shouldn't we group them with the Yankees and Red Sox? And nah, I think it's safe to say they 'Spend Dumb' now when they overpay for mediocre talent like Ted Lilly, Jason Marquis, and Mark DeRosa, way overpay Alfonso Soriano. The only 2 moves they made this offseason that I liked was signing Lou Pinella and Cliff Floyd. But that's part of the nature of this market, I guess.I will say, I will laugh if Carlos Zambrano doesn't end up resigning with the Cubs after they gave Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis 17 million combined they could have used on him. :whistling:

 

[Jon_Vilma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ Feb 28 2007, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Feb 28 2007, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>HEY!! Don't lump them as corrupt bastards who spend crazy money. We spend a lot, but we spend dumb. We could easily afford to spend more</div>That's not to be decided now, it's to be decided 3-5 years from now.</div>After this past offseason, the Cubs payroll is up at the point where they are spending 'crazy money'.....why shouldn't we group them with the Yankees and Red Sox? And nah, I think it's safe to say they 'Spend Dumb' now when they overpay for mediocre talent like Ted Lilly, Jason Marquis, and Mark DeRosa, way overpay Alfonso Soriano. The only 2 moves they made this offseason that I liked was signing Lou Pinella and Cliff Floyd. But that's part of the nature of this market, I guess.I will say, I will laugh if Carlos Zambrano doesn't end up resigning with the Cubs after they gave Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis 17 million combined they could have used on him. :whistling:</div>That'll be a good laugh for a while when he signs with the Big Boys.... aka Yankees.

 

[DevinHester23]

[quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='86087' date='Feb 28 2007, 11:56 PM'][quote name='AdropOFvenom' post='86083' date='Feb 28 2007, 09:50 PM']

[quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='86060' date='Feb 28 2007, 08:58 PM']HEY!! Don't lump them as corrupt bastards who spend crazy money. We spend a lot, but we spend dumb. We could easily afford to spend more

That's not to be decided now, it's to be decided 3-5 years from now.[/quote]After this past offseason, the Cubs payroll is up at the point where they are spending 'crazy money'.....why shouldn't we group them with the Yankees and Red Sox? And nah, I think it's safe to say they 'Spend Dumb' now when they overpay for mediocre talent like Ted Lilly, Jason Marquis, and Mark DeRosa, way overpay Alfonso Soriano. The only 2 moves they made this offseason that I liked was signing Lou Pinella and Cliff Floyd. But that's part of the nature of this market, I guess.I will say, I will laugh if Carlos Zambrano doesn't end up resigning with the Cubs after they gave Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis 17 million combined they could have used on him. :whistling:[/quote]That'll be a good laugh for a while when he signs with the Big Boys.... aka Yankees.[/quote]He won't join the Yuckies!!!

 

[Jon_Vilma]

[quote name='DevinHester23' post='86224' date='Mar 1 2007, 09:55 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='86087' date='Feb 28 2007, 11:56 PM'][quote name='AdropOFvenom' post='86083' date='Feb 28 2007, 09:50 PM']

[quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='86060' date='Feb 28 2007, 08:58 PM']HEY!! Don't lump them as corrupt bastards who spend crazy money. We spend a lot, but we spend dumb. We could easily afford to spend more

That's not to be decided now, it's to be decided 3-5 years from now.[/quote]After this past offseason, the Cubs payroll is up at the point where they are spending 'crazy money'.....why shouldn't we group them with the Yankees and Red Sox? And nah, I think it's safe to say they 'Spend Dumb' now when they overpay for mediocre talent like Ted Lilly, Jason Marquis, and Mark DeRosa, way overpay Alfonso Soriano. The only 2 moves they made this offseason that I liked was signing Lou Pinella and Cliff Floyd. But that's part of the nature of this market, I guess.I will say, I will laugh if Carlos Zambrano doesn't end up resigning with the Cubs after they gave Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis 17 million combined they could have used on him. :whistling:[/quote]That'll be a good laugh for a while when he signs with the Big Boys.... aka Yankees.[/quote]He won't join the Yuckies!!![/quote] :lazy: