Quote:
Originally Posted by Goody
Many people already pointed out in this thread that it does nothing to stop dynasties and greatness by bringing up examples from the NFL and NBA. The dynasties are still there, its just fair dynasties where the well run organizations are rewarded for doing it with the same resources as the other guy.
|
Please define "fair" in this context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goody
It seems that the poorly run organizations are being bailed out the most in baseball as it stands now.
|
And how does a salary cap change that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goody
The owners are still getting rich, the players are still rich...but the teams still suck.
|
Do you think it was really any better during the reserve clause era in terms of teams performing poorly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Foster
The talent pool was also SUBSTANTIALLY smaller at the time due to the lack of Black (and most latino/all asian) players and the smaller population.
|
There were also substantially fewer Major League teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Foster
Not ALL clubs spent more on amateur players.
|
No, they all did, it's just that some were willing or able to spend more.
Signing bonuses stayed relatively modest until the WWII years, when the demands of the war effort took away much of the Major League talent resulting in greater competition for promising amateur players. In 1942, the competition resulted in Detroit paying out a then-record signing bonus of $52,000. The first club to pay a $100,000 signing bonus was Pittsburgh in 1950. The Pirates set the Major League record again in 1961, paying out a $175,000 signing bonus. In 1964, MLB estimated that over $7 million was paid out in signing bonuses to amateur players. This was more than was being spent on Major League player salaries.