login
MLB Salary Cap
-
No new posts
|
 2009-08-10 9:30 AM |
Master  1585    Folsom (Sacramento), CA |  Subject: MLB Salary CapThis topic came up in the Red Sox/Yankees thread but I thought it deserved its own thread. For those of you who follow baseball.... do we need a salary cap? I personally think we do. I'm not sure what the situation is as of today, but as of Saturday, 7/8 playoff teams were in the top 10 in total salary and all were in the top half. Baseball is currently a game of have and have nots. Yes a smaller market can compete for a year or two, but typically they fade after that. People who live in smaller markets should not have to wait 10+ years to see their teams make the playoffs for a second time. The Yankees currently have a salary of 201 million. The Marlins have a salary of 38 million. You really expect to see competitive baseball with gaps like that? The second largest pay roll is 135 million, in Boston. The Yankees have 3 of the top 4 contracts in all of baseball. Yes the Yankees have made some bad signings over the Years, but you can go back out and buy another free agent to fill any gaps. When a small to mid market team makes a bad signing, like the Giants with Zito, it cripples them for a few years. This article highlights how big the gap has gotten. The summary: The Red Sox recently dumped John Smoltz. He was on the team for 6 weeks. He made 7.06 million over that time period. Thats more than the Marlins pay their entire starting rotation, more than the reigning AL Cy Young, more than Cole Hamels. Only 56 players were guaranteed to make more money for the entire year. And the kicker, the Boston GM called this a low risk deal. It just shows that for large market teams, the money is there to spend spend spend. So BT, what do you think? Does baseball need a salary cap? |
| 2009-08-10 9:33 AM in reply to: #2338275 |
Champion 34263   Chicago | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap To keep things competitive having a salary cap is a good idea. They should put a salary cap on the owners, though. Because if Steinbrenner and Co. can afford to pay the players $201 million, imagine how much HE'S making. Cut salaries and the extra money will go into his pockets. |
| 2009-08-10 9:42 AM in reply to: #2338275 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap I do think we need a salary cap. However your example of the yankees and marlins is a poor one. When was the last time the yankees won it all? Now how bout the marlins? Salary's have gotten out of control I think. |
| 2009-08-10 9:51 AM in reply to: #2338275 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap It's convenient to forget the years from 1981-1995 where the Yanks didn't even make the playoffs or all the years until 2004 where the Red Sox didn't win either (not to mention that the stretch when the Yanks won their recent series were due in large part to players they brought up in their own farm system). What about Smoltz's 90's where his Atlanta team had a stranglehold on the NL? The Twins and A's have had long stretches of competitive playoff ball... It all goes in cycles. Since 1990, depending on what you consider a small market team has won the WS at least 8 times (10 if you consider St. Louis and Atlanta small market, 12 if you add in Philly and White Sox). And during that same period the only WS that didn't involve a small market teams was the Yankee-Mets in 2000 (or possibly the two Yankees-Braves series). This year the Yanks alone will pay over $26M in luxury tax which goes to the small market teams to put towards payroll, I think this is a much better system than some sort of a salary cap. |
| 2009-08-10 10:26 AM in reply to: #2338275 |
| On your right | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap Like I posted in the Sox/Yanks thread the small market argument is crap. To own a major leage baseball team you need to have LOTS of money. To claim that an owner simply doesn't have the money to spend on his team is silly. They have the money, they just would rather spend it on their other business ventures. Baseball teams don't make much money, but if you want them to make some, you have to spend money on them. Good teams make more money because more people come to the games. Without wins, you don't get big crowds. It is easier to have a crap team and then say "We can't compete because we don't have the money" than needing to actually put your own money up to bring in players. But if you don't want to spend the money on your team, sell it to somebody that will. |
| 2009-08-10 10:34 AM in reply to: #2338347 |
Master 1585 Folsom (Sacramento), CA | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap drewb8 - 2009-08-10 7:51 AM It's convenient to forget the years from 1981-1995 where the Yanks didn't even make the playoffs or all the years until 2004 where the Red Sox didn't win either (not to mention that the stretch when the Yanks won their recent series were due in large part to players they brought up in their own farm system). What about Smoltz's 90's where his Atlanta team had a stranglehold on the NL? The Twins and A's have had long stretches of competitive playoff ball... It all goes in cycles. Since 1990, depending on what you consider a small market team has won the WS at least 8 times (10 if you consider St. Louis and Atlanta small market, 12 if you add in Philly and White Sox). And during that same period the only WS that didn't involve a small market teams was the Yankee-Mets in 2000 (or possibly the two Yankees-Braves series). This year the Yanks alone will pay over $26M in luxury tax which goes to the small market teams to put towards payroll, I think this is a much better system than some sort of a salary cap. It's also convenient to mention the years from 1981-1995, since during that time period the Yankees never had a salary that was 50% higher than any other team in the league and only many years didnt even have the highest salary. During the Brave's run of dominance, they were regularly in the top 3 in team salary. Having a high salary by no means guarantee's success, but it definitely is a factor in putting you in the conversation year after year. While Boston may not have won it all until 2004, the were in the playoffs quite a few times in the late 90s and early 2000s. |
| 2009-08-10 10:43 AM in reply to: #2338453 |
Master 1585 Folsom (Sacramento), CA | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap Chaderbox - 2009-08-10 8:26 AM Like I posted in the Sox/Yanks thread the small market argument is crap. To own a major leage baseball team you need to have LOTS of money. To claim that an owner simply doesn't have the money to spend on his team is silly. They have the money, they just would rather spend it on their other business ventures. Baseball teams don't make much money, but if you want them to make some, you have to spend money on them. Good teams make more money because more people come to the games. Without wins, you don't get big crowds. It is easier to have a crap team and then say "We can't compete because we don't have the money" than needing to actually put your own money up to bring in players. But if you don't want to spend the money on your team, sell it to somebody that will. Do you really think that attendance is what makes the difference in team revenue? The Yankees make a hug amount of maney in their media market, thus the term large market team. How often are the Yankees on national tv? How often are the Red Sox? The media made a huge deal out of this series. The Giants play the Dodgers over the next 3 days. The teams are in the exact same situation as the Red Sox/Yankees, one leading the division and the other leading the wild card. How many people even know this series is going on? That is the reasonfor the massive difference in revenue. The Giants are at already at 85% attendance, a similar attendance rate to the Yankees, yet they rank 14th in total salary. |
| 2009-08-10 10:58 AM in reply to: #2338478 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap uclamatt2007 - 2009-08-10 9:34 AM It's also convenient to mention the years from 1981-1995, since during that time period the Yankees never had a salary that was 50% higher than any other team in the league and only many years didnt even have the highest salary. During the Brave's run of dominance, they were regularly in the top 3 in team salary. Having a high salary by no means guarantee's success, but it definitely is a factor in putting you in the conversation year after year. While Boston may not have won it all until 2004, the were in the playoffs quite a few times in the late 90s and early 2000s. I agree having the abiltity to spend money does put you in the conversation and give you more options, but if the Braves wanted to be #3 in payroll next year I don't see why they couldn't. It might make their profit margins smaller for the owner, but if they wanted to spend more money they could. Just like Huzenga (sp? The owner of the Marlins) could've spent the $ to keep his WS teams together and be successful longer term instead of having fire sales the following years. Now maybe the Pirates can't spend like the Yankees, but I just don't see why we should be punishing teams for being successful. I just think it would be much better to help the smaller teams raise up and be able to spend more than to pull the bigger teams down. |
| 2009-08-10 11:04 AM in reply to: #2338512 |
| On your right | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap For most teams, yes, getting more people will have a big impact. More people gives you a greater chance for selling merchandise and concessions. It will also impact their ability to get more money from advertisers because they will have a bigger audience at the park. Simply selling out games doesn't help in and of itself, but the extra $ that comes from big crowds is the key. You can't look at the Yanks as the model for what all other teams can do. There just aren't other teams with their popularity across the country, or the ability to support an actual network. As far as Sox/Yanks being more in the media, it's because those teams are just more popular. Being on the East Coast doesn't hurt either. They can have night games that the whole nation will watch, that just can't happen on the West Coast because of the time differences. I can't always stay up to watch an entire Yankee game when they're home, so I would have no desire to wait until 10 or 11pm to start watching a game. It ultimately comes down to the owners. Plain and simple. If you don't want to spend the money to compete, don't own the team. And if you don't have the money to spend to be competitive, don't buy a team, (or sell if you already own). But to say that any owner doesn't have the money is either not accurate, or a failing of the owner to make a smart business move. |
| 2009-08-10 11:44 AM in reply to: #2338275 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap Another thing to point out is how much more "exciting" the salary cap can make things. Look at the NBA. There are a lot of big trades that involve star players and multiple teams. This almost never happens in MLB. |
| 2009-08-10 11:51 AM in reply to: #2338347 |
Extreme Veteran 550 Vine Grove, KY | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap A salary cap would be beneficial, but you also have to MAKE the small market owners spend the money. You can't have a salary cap at 100 million, and yet 10 teams not spending 75 mil. |
| 2009-08-10 12:09 PM in reply to: #2338742 |
Elite 3371 | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap TriathletePT - 2009-08-10 12:51 PM A salary cap would be beneficial, but you also have to MAKE the small market owners spend the money. You can't have a salary cap at 100 million, and yet 10 teams not spending 75 mil. x2. I wish they'd put a salary cap in place... From CBSSports:
| ||||
| 2009-08-10 2:00 PM in reply to: #2338275 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap No cap. If you don't like the salaries, don't go to the games. I purposely don't go to professional sporting events because I don't believe athletes deserve their salaries. It's called capitalism and we are not forced to be fans of idiocy. I like going to small time local hockey games (Hershey Bears) and I like supporting local high schools by attending their sporting events. At least at the lower levels, you know the athletes have their hearts into the game. |
| 2009-08-10 2:51 PM in reply to: #2338275 |
Master 1639 Robbinsville NJ | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap I like the idea of a salary cap (Max and MIN) for baseball with a few caveats. If a team like the Yankees can develop 10 future great players they should be able to pay to keep them (similar to basketball's pay over the cap to keep your own rule) but to allow them to make 4 to 5 years of mistakes and then make up for it by buying the 3 best players on the market makes for an uneven playing field. All the local Yankee fans walking around in their Teixeira jerseys act like it was some act of genius that led to them signing him. No, it's called having more money than everyone else and not screwing it up for once. To say you have to be willing to spend money to be an owner is true in a sense but no one is going to purposely lose millions of dollars just to compete. Even the Yankees don't go past their threshold. They just have the benefit of being in New York with the greatest reserve of blind, rich faithful to fleece.... I mean tap into to and that includes their ability to basically print money with their own network. Having said I'm for a cap there's still something to the David and Goliath aspect of baseball and the relative unpredictability of the game that keeps me glued (that and the Phils 2nd title in 100 years!). |
| 2009-08-10 3:05 PM in reply to: #2339345 |
Master 1585 Folsom (Sacramento), CA | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap colesdad - 2009-08-10 12:51 PM I like the idea of a salary cap (Max and MIN) for baseball with a few caveats. If a team like the Yankees can develop 10 future great players they should be able to pay to keep them (similar to basketball's pay over the cap to keep your own rule) but to allow them to make 4 to 5 years of mistakes and then make up for it by buying the 3 best players on the market makes for an uneven playing field. All the local Yankee fans walking around in their Teixeira jerseys act like it was some act of genius that led to them signing him. No, it's called having more money than everyone else and not screwing it up for once. To say you have to be willing to spend money to be an owner is true in a sense but no one is going to purposely lose millions of dollars just to compete. Even the Yankees don't go past their threshold. They just have the benefit of being in New York with the greatest reserve of blind, rich faithful to fleece.... I mean tap into to and that includes their ability to basically print money with their own network. Having said I'm for a cap there's still something to the David and Goliath aspect of baseball and the relative unpredictability of the game that keeps me glued (that and the Phils 2nd title in 100 years!). Some might say that the Phillies are one of the Goliaths, with the 3rd highest salary in the NL. |
| 2009-08-10 3:11 PM in reply to: #2338727 |
Extreme Veteran 606 | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap JoshR - 2009-08-10 12:44 PM Another thing to point out is how much more "exciting" the salary cap can make things. Look at the NBA. There are a lot of big trades that involve star players and multiple teams. This almost never happens in MLB. Only problem is in the NBA...it's the teams that spend the most that make the playoffs. 12 of the 14 highest payrolls in 2008-9 made the playoffs. The discrepancy between the highest sallary team (LA - $91 mil) and the bottom (ATL - $44 mil) is more than 2x's. Granted it's not the 8x's in MLB 2008 Team Salaries ($ in Millions)(* made Playoffs) 1. LA* $ 91 2. UT* $84 3. CLE* $79 4. BOS* $79 5. SA* $78 6. ORL* $77 |
| 2009-08-10 3:20 PM in reply to: #2339345 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap colesdad - 2009-08-10 1:51 PM I like the idea of a salary cap (Max and MIN) for baseball with a few caveats. If a team like the Yankees can develop 10 future great players they should be able to pay to keep them (similar to basketball's pay over the cap to keep your own rule) but to allow them to make 4 to 5 years of mistakes and then make up for it by buying the 3 best players on the market makes for an uneven playing field. All the local Yankee fans walking around in their Teixeira jerseys act like it was some act of genius that led to them signing him. No, it's called having more money than everyone else and not screwing it up for once. To say you have to be willing to spend money to be an owner is true in a sense but no one is going to purposely lose millions of dollars just to compete. Even the Yankees don't go past their threshold. They just have the benefit of being in New York with the greatest reserve of blind, rich faithful to fleece.... I mean tap into to and that includes their ability to basically print money with their own network. Having said I'm for a cap there's still something to the David and Goliath aspect of baseball and the relative unpredictability of the game that keeps me glued (that and the Phils 2nd title in 100 years!). The whole reason for a cap would be to remedy some competative imbalance and I just don't think the case that one exists is very strong. Since 1995, somethig like all but 7 teams have made it to the playoffs. Yes, the larger have an advantage due to the money they can spend, but that's all it is - an advantage, not a guarantee. And it may be unfair, but the popularity of the Yanks or red sox or Dodgers benefits the league as a whole. Not only in the extra revenue the smaller teams receive from them in the form of revenue sharing and luxury tax (which by the way are a form of soft salary cap), but also by the increased attendence when these teams come to town, as well as the sense of satisfaction when one of them falls. The goodguys vs badguys, everyone vs the bohemith gives the league interest and character that you don't have any more in the bland parity that is now football. That said, your version of a cap is about the only kind that I could start to get behind, although I still think it would be better to lower the threshhold for the luxury tax and stipulate that the teams that receive luxury tax money spend it on payroll or player development, not profits. |
| 2009-08-10 3:41 PM in reply to: #2339407 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap JustTriDave - 2009-08-10 2:11 PM JoshR - 2009-08-10 12:44 PM Another thing to point out is how much more "exciting" the salary cap can make things. Look at the NBA. There are a lot of big trades that involve star players and multiple teams. This almost never happens in MLB. Only problem is in the NBA...it's the teams that spend the most that make the playoffs. 12 of the 14 highest payrolls in 2008-9 made the playoffs. The discrepancy between the highest sallary team (LA - $91 mil) and the bottom (ATL - $44 mil) is more than 2x's. Granted it's not the 8x's in MLB 2008 Team Salaries ($ in Millions)(* made Playoffs) 1. LA* $ 91 2. UT* $84 3. CLE* $79 4. BOS* $79 5. SA* $78 6. ORL* $77 Last year was a bit of a fluke with the top 3 teams not making the playoffs, but 5 of the playoff teams were in the top 8 and 7 of the 8 were in the top half. TB being the lone exception. Team Payroll (* Made Playoffs) 1. N.Y. Yankees $209,081,579 (First time in 13 years, they didn't make it) 2. Detroit 138,685,197 3. New York Mets 138,293,378 (Another huge collapse at the end of the season) 4. Boston 133,440,037* 5. Chicago White Sox 121,152,667* 6. Los Angeles Angels 119,216,333* 7. Chicago Cubs 118,595,833* 8. Los Angeles Dodgers 118,536,038* |
| 2009-08-10 3:44 PM in reply to: #2338286 |
Expert 1070 Denver Area | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap mr2tony - 2009-08-10 8:33 AM To keep things competitive having a salary cap is a good idea. They should put a salary cap on the owners, though. Because if Steinbrenner and Co. can afford to pay the players $201 million, imagine how much HE'S making. Cut salaries and the extra money will go into his pockets. that's right.---^ but cap'em anyway, it's gotten obscene. |
| 2009-08-10 6:06 PM in reply to: #2338275 |
Regular 78 | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap I used to be a big proponent of a salary cap for MLB. I think in the other sports it has stopped teams from fielding an entire All-Star team. It also makes the GM think twice about making moves. However, after reading an article from ESPN (I will have to find it, but I think Onley or Law wrote it) I am not against a salary cap. A lot of the teams that cry because the are "small market team" actually have benefited from the way MLB is currently set up. What I mean by this is the fact that a lot of these so called small market teams share money from the Lax Tax. paid by the Yankees and teams like them, and also get money from Revenue sharing. I think they had a figure that on average a small market team ended up making 20 to 30 million dollars from this. So in reality, most of these small market Owners are not spending a lot of money to field their team. Finally, while I do think spending in the last few years has gotten out of hand in MLB especially when you look at the draft, a lot of these high priced free-agents end up flaming out in the middle of their contract, which in the end costs teams like the Yankees even more money. So in reality some of the small market teams end up saving money by not paying for players who are past their prime. |
| 2009-08-10 6:14 PM in reply to: #2338275 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap I don't know, doesn't a salary cap sound a bit too much like socialism? Ha, just kidding.  Of course baseball needs a salary cap...coupled with revenue-sharing. I just can't get hyped up when so many teams have virtually no shot. |
| 2009-08-10 6:22 PM in reply to: #2338275 |
Champion 6627 Rochester Hills, Michigan Gold member | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap I'm not for a salary cap at all. I'm for a 'total cost to run the team' cap. Capping Major-Leaguer's roster costs is just the tip of the iceberg; it tries to make it so the MLB costs are at a certain level. That's only one component, though. If you compare the number of coaches, the facilities, the perks, the mode of operation of say, the Marlins to the Bosox it will be much different. Non-salary components, whether it be coaching, services, number of farm teams, scouts, advisors, etc differentiate top tier teams from non-top tier teams. If you don't look at the total cost, you'll never get the whole picture. It's similar to hockey, which does have a salary cap. Players come to Detroit to play because of TV exposure, the quality of life on the road, the professionalism, the coaching, the peer group, etc. They play for less money (Hossa) than they could command on the open market because they see value in all the other stuff, it'll let them negotiate a bigger contract - somewhere - later. No different in baseball, salary is only one component - albeit a big one - of the equation. Gotta look at the whole equation. |
| 2009-08-10 6:28 PM in reply to: #2339915 |
Regular 78 | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap ChineseDemocracy - 2009-08-10 4:14 PM I don't know, doesn't a salary cap sound a bit too much like socialism? Ha, just kidding. Actually that is far from the truth, which is actually surprising. In the last 25 years baseball has had 17 World Champion's. On the other hand Basketball has had 7 teams win the championship. Of course baseball needs a salary cap...coupled with revenue-sharing. I just can't get hyped up when so many teams have virtually no shot.I think the one argument that could be made though in favor of a salary cap is that a lot of teams have to make major moves in the off season because the World Champ of a smaller market team just can not afford to keep everyone around in a few years. So, a team like the Florida Marlins is smart enough to move their soon to be or currently high priced players for future prospects that can get them back to a promise land. So if you limit the amount a team can spend, you will maybe see a team price a smaller market team out of that player's service. In the end though if MLB does force a salary cap they need to be very strict about it like the NFL is. If it is like the NBA, teams will still spend lots of money and in the end they will have no problem paying the LUX tax. |
| 2009-08-10 7:21 PM in reply to: #2339929 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap rkreuser - 2009-08-10 7:22 PM I'm not for a salary cap at all. I'm for a 'total cost to run the team' cap. Capping Major-Leaguer's roster costs is just the tip of the iceberg; it tries to make it so the MLB costs are at a certain level. That's only one component, though. If you compare the number of coaches, the facilities, the perks, the mode of operation of say, the Marlins to the Bosox it will be much different. Non-salary components, whether it be coaching, services, number of farm teams, scouts, advisors, etc differentiate top tier teams from non-top tier teams. If you don't look at the total cost, you'll never get the whole picture. It's similar to hockey, which does have a salary cap. Players come to Detroit to play because of TV exposure, the quality of life on the road, the professionalism, the coaching, the peer group, etc. They play for less money (Hossa) than they could command on the open market because they see value in all the other stuff, it'll let them negotiate a bigger contract - somewhere - later. No different in baseball, salary is only one component - albeit a big one - of the equation. Gotta look at the whole equation. You forgot to mention the 2nd place trophy.   |
| 2009-08-10 9:06 PM in reply to: #2340035 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: MLB Salary Cap Pector55 - You forgot to mention the 2nd place trophy. My 7yo asked me the other night if baseball players get money for playing baseball, in addition to getting a trophy if they come in first. It was precious. He thinks now that players should only get paid if they win.
Does anyone know how revenue from games on ESPN, Fox, Direct TV, and MLB.TV gets shared in the league? |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK