Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckguy
New to sports are we? Kidding! it is always about the cash...well not always but most times!
I don't begrudge the players one bit for taking advantage of the system. Just makes me look up even more to the players who take discounts and do other things to try and win versus taking the most cash available.
Not to put this on the topic of big market/small again but I just don't understand why people say the system is unfair. I still think it comes back to the owners and what there willing to invest.
Boston and New York were never always big power houses, it only started after they each had owners who were willing to invest. Is Boston not smaller market wise than Texas? Boston is good because they're willing to invest in there team, spend money to make money.
I don't see why teams like Arizona or Chicago can't invest more...oh wait they each have owners (corporations?) that are brutal that's why. You need some rich dude who wants to live vicariously through his sports team. See Mr Jones in Dallas, Mark Cuban, that Henry dude in Boston.
|
New York didn't win all those World Series' before 1973?
Boston didn't make big signings in the years before John Henry?
It's easy to say that there is no issue because New York and Boston have owners willing to spend. It's much smarter to say that they are willing to spend because they have so much money coming in that there is very little risk in spending on players; a bad contract is a nuisance, whereas to most other teams it is an albatross.
(And by the way, do you really want to go with Boston being a smaller market than Dallas? You might want to do some research, preferably on something other than city-limit population.)