PDA

View Full Version : Do You Think MLB Needs A Hard Salary Cap?


Thome25
12-24-2008, 01:35 PM
With the recent statements by the Brewers owner and the Yankees recent shopping trip at "Free Agent Kmart"......do you think MLB needs a hard salary cap?

I am in no way complaining about the stae of MLB economics. The Yankees are what they are. If they want to spend like drunken sailors then fine.....it won't necessarily guarantee them a WS victory. It hasn't in the last 8 years.

I have seen recent posts (credit goes to Fedex.) that say that the Yankees are head and shoulders above the rest of MLB because of their new stadium and the revenue from the television network they own.

If this is true then I think MLB needs to institute some sort of a hard salary cap to bring more parity to baseball.

What do you think?

soxfan21
12-24-2008, 01:37 PM
I voted yes.

DumpJerry
12-24-2008, 01:55 PM
Too bad you did not make this a public poll.

But that's ok, nobody else has voted no yet, so I don't have to wonder who agrees with me.

A hard salary cap is a simple solution to a perceived (i.e., non existent) complex problem.

EMachine10
12-24-2008, 02:06 PM
I voted no. Do the Yankees win the World Series every year? Do the teams with the highest payroll win the WS every year? If the goofy Marlins can win a few World Series under this system then I don't have a problem with it. Some teams build through the draft, and others build through free agency. We don't have to go too far to look at how the Rays beat out the Red Sox and Yankees to capture the East this year. I'm not convinced that a cap will bring more parity to the league, or at least any more that it has now.

jabrch
12-24-2008, 02:10 PM
It needs a cap - AND A FLOOR.

Jpgr91
12-24-2008, 02:11 PM
Putting a cap in place does not force teams to spend money on players, it only makes player salaries lower. How would that help parity? The only way to move towards parity would be put a cap in place that most of the league could meet. The achievable cap number would be so low relative to the payrolls of the top 8 teams the system could never work. I think other avenues need to be examined to have more parity, but a salary cap is not one of them.

kittle42
12-24-2008, 02:13 PM
Do whatever the NFL does. It works there, unless you're the Lions.

AZChiSoxFan
12-24-2008, 02:18 PM
Do whatever the NFL does. It works there, unless you're the Lions.

The NFL is the reason I voted "no" in the poll. If you have the money and want to spend it, more power to you. The NFL system has allowed incompetent and cheap morons like Dollar Bill Bidwell to make millions of dollars.

SoxyStu
12-24-2008, 02:20 PM
Without a cap on revenue, the addition of a cap to expenses will do one thing - fatten up the fat cats even more.

Thome25
12-24-2008, 02:22 PM
It needs a cap - AND A FLOOR.

I agree....owners shouldn't be able to slash payroll just to sit back and collect fans' money.

I voted no. Do the Yankees win the World Series every year? Do the teams with the highest payroll win the WS every year? If the goofy Marlins can win a few World Series under this system then I don't have a problem with it. Some teams build through the draft, and others build through free agency. We don't have to go too far to look at how the Rays beat out the Red Sox and Yankees to capture the East this year. I'm not convinced that a cap will bring more parity to the league, or at least any more that it has now.

Too bad you did not make this a public poll.

But that's ok, nobody else has voted no yet, so I don't have to wonder who agrees with me.

A hard salary cap is a simple solution to a perceived (i.e., non existent) complex problem.

You mean it isn't a problem when teams like the Brewers can't afford to keep their own free agents (Sabathia) because a team as rich as the Yankees swoops in and puts the bidding out of everyone's reach?

The Yankees did the same thing with Tex. He wasn't necessarily worth that much money but the Yanks put the bidding out of everyone's reach because of their Stadium and TV deals<<<<which not many other teams can say they have.

Lukin13
12-24-2008, 02:23 PM
The owners need to bring the pain in the next labor negotiations.

Figuring the economy will still be in the dumps, Americans won't have much sympathy for the player's union, giving owner's their biggest advantage in many years.

I have never seen myself as a Cub hater, but everytime a salary cap discussion comes up, in the back of my mind I realize that a cap would most likely increase the chance of the Cubs not winning the World Series for another 100 years.

Hendu
12-24-2008, 02:25 PM
There has to be more revenue sharing before a salary cap. And a strong commissioner who can take away revenue sharing funds from teams that pocket it, or spend it foolishly year after year. For example, no team should be giving Jose Guillen a 1 year $25 million contract just to avoid any rules on spending their revenue sharing money.

EMachine10
12-24-2008, 02:25 PM
I agree....owners shouldn't be able to slash payroll just to sit back and collect fans' money.





You mean it isn't a problem when teams like the Brewers can't afford to keep their own free agents (Sabathia) because a team as rich as the Yankees swoops in and puts the bidding out of everyone's reach?

The Yankees did the same thing with Tex. He wasn't necessarily worth that much money but the Yanks put the bidding out of everyone's reach because of their Stadium and TV deals<<<<which not many other teams can say they have.
That doesn't guarantee a championship season, nor does it force the free agent to sign with them. If CC really wanted to stay in Milwaukee he could have. That aspect has everything to do with players' greed.

WhiteSox5187
12-24-2008, 02:44 PM
The NFL is the reason I voted "no" in the poll. If you have the money and want to spend it, more power to you. The NFL system has allowed incompetent and cheap morons like Dollar Bill Bidwell to make millions of dollars.
Which is the same thing the luxury tax allows the owners of the Royals, Pirates and Marlins to do.

If you have a ceiling, you have to have a floor. And I think there needs to be some sort of shared revenue as well. Like Kittle said, do whatever the NFL is doing.

Thome25
12-24-2008, 02:47 PM
That doesn't guarantee a championship season, nor does it force the free agent to sign with them. If CC really wanted to stay in Milwaukee he could have. That aspect has everything to do with players' greed.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I have been one of the posters on here to point out that of the last 8 WS winners, a majority of them have been mid to low payroll teams. Even the teams to lose the WS have been mid to low payroll as well.

There is still a problem though when there is such a wide gap between the Yankees and every other team when it comes to revenue and payroll. You also have pressure from the players union for players to take the highest bid possible rather than the deal from the team they want to stay with. Bottom line is, there's problems on both sides of the coin and they need to be fixed for the sake of the fans and the game itself.

cws05champ
12-24-2008, 02:57 PM
I voted yes, but I also agree that we need to modify the exiting rev sharing first. A lower ceiling on payroll for the Luxury tax and a stiffer penalty needs to be enforced for going over that amount. On the flip side, the teams like the Marlins that are receiving signifigant resources in rev sharing should be required to put that $$ into payroll and not in the owners wallet.

Besides, the only way a salary cap will go in MLB is if we have another strike/lockout as this will be a huge contention between the MLBPA and MLB. If fans are willing to deal with a work stopage for 1-2 years and still come back afterwards, OK, but I suspect a large % would not return.

Hendu
12-24-2008, 02:57 PM
The other problem is that the mega-deals being thrown around by the top teams skew arbitration awards as well, and in turn drive up the prices for lesser free agents.

thedudeabides
12-24-2008, 03:07 PM
I really don't think a hard salary cap is necessary. This seems to come up every couple years when the Yankees sign ARod to a record contract, or the Red Sox bid over $50 million just to negotiate with a pitcher.

Let's face it, the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and to a lesser degree the two LA teams will always be able to throw a ton of money at their problems. Then you have teams like the Sox, Tigers, and Giants who will pump revenues back into their teams when they have successful runs. Odds are these teams can't sustain the payrolls forever.

I do think that a couple of teams are at a competitive advantage. The Yankees and Red Sox are rarely ever going to be bad teams, because they have the means to correct mistakes and fix holes without having to deplete their talent in order to do so. Whereas, the Rays and Marlins will have trouble hanging on to their young talent once they approach free agency. That's why it's hard for them to sustain success. The Rays are good now, but how long did it take for them to get there, and how long will it last?

This also really upsets teams like the Blue Jays and O's, because it makes it very tough for them to compete in their own division.

You may not see a large payroll buy a World Series, but we are starting to see a lot of the same teams making the playoffs. But, I don't think that calls for a hard salary cap, which will do nothing but stuff the pockets of the owners even more.

I would like to see a salary floor and much tougher percentages for luxury taxes. Although, that would hardly discourage the Yankees from doing what they're doing. And that's what separates them from everybody else.

btrain929
12-24-2008, 03:12 PM
I want a salary floor so teams like PIT and FLA are forced to do more than dump players, sit back, and collect checks from MLB.com...

Thome25
12-24-2008, 03:16 PM
I really don't think a hard salary cap is necessary. This seems to come up every couple years when the Yankees sign ARod to a record contract, or the Red Sox bid over $50 million just to negotiate with a pitcher.

Let's face it, the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and to a lesser degree the two LA teams will always be able to throw a ton of money at their problems. Then you have teams like the Sox, Tigers, and Giants who will pump revenues back into their teams when they have successful runs. Odds are these teams can't sustain the payrolls forever.

I do think that a couple of teams are at a competitive advantage. The Yankees and Red Sox are rarely ever going to be bad teams, because they have the means to correct mistakes and fix holes without having to deplete their talent in order to do so. Whereas, the Rays and Marlins will have trouble hanging on to their young talent once they approach free agency. That's why it's hard for them to sustain success. The Rays are good now, but how long did it take for them to get there, and how long will it last?

This also really upsets teams like the Blue Jays and O's, because it makes it very tough for them to compete in their own division.

You may not see a large payroll buy a World Series, but we are starting to see a lot of the same teams making the playoffs. But, I don't think that calls for a hard salary cap, which will do nothing but stuff the pockets of the owners even more.

I would like to see a salary floor and much tougher percentages for luxury taxes. Although, that would hardly discourage the Yankees from doing what they're doing. And that's what separates them from everybody else.

Winning and player salary is one big circle. If you have a run like the Yankees where you win 26 World Series championships then the money starts to flow in the form of TV and attendance revenue.

But, it's also a catch-22. If you don't win then you can't spend money on payroll because your revenue flow diminishes. But, in most cases you can't sustain a long run of winning seasons without spending some money. It's like which came first the chicken or the egg?

That's why alot of the mid to small payroll teams are stuck in this cycle and it's near impossible for them to get themselves out and become one of these super teams.

Unless a Salary Cap/Floor is implemented.

kittle42
12-24-2008, 03:18 PM
The NFL is the reason I voted "no" in the poll. If you have the money and want to spend it, more power to you. The NFL system has allowed incompetent and cheap morons like Dollar Bill Bidwell to make millions of dollars.

Good for the fans, however, so who cares who's making the cash. I mean, really, the fans' LAST concern should be who is making the cash as long as their team has a chance year in and year out.

Daver
12-24-2008, 03:18 PM
The only purpose a salary cap serves is to guarantee the owner's profit margin.

kittle42
12-24-2008, 03:19 PM
That doesn't guarantee a championship season, nor does it force the free agent to sign with them. If CC really wanted to stay in Milwaukee he could have. That aspect has everything to do with players' greed.

Players' greed my foot. They want more money just like I'm sure 95% of us want more money at our jobs.

kittle42
12-24-2008, 03:21 PM
The only purpose a salary cap serves is to guarantee the owner's profit margin.

As many have pointed out, a floor is needed, too.

jabrch
12-24-2008, 03:34 PM
The only purpose a salary cap serves is to guarantee the owner's profit margin.

If you only implement a cap - then yes.

If you implement a cap, a floor, and a manner with which these numbers are tied to composite revenue streams, you can make it more equitable once you figure out what portion of the money the players/owners should get.

jabrch
12-24-2008, 03:35 PM
The NFL is the reason I voted "no" in the poll. If you have the money and want to spend it, more power to you. The NFL system has allowed incompetent and cheap morons like Dollar Bill Bidwell to make millions of dollars.

It isn't perfect, but there is far more regular competition and opportunity for an owner who WANTS to win to do so. In baseball, even if a small team wants to compete, they start off handicapped by 200mm. In football, their desire is more a constraint.

Daver
12-24-2008, 03:42 PM
If you only implement a cap - then yes.

If you implement a cap, a floor, and a manner with which these numbers are tied to composite revenue streams, you can make it more equitable once you figure out what portion of the money the players/owners should get.

It still does nothing but guarantee the owners profit margins.

jamokes
12-24-2008, 03:43 PM
Baseball needs a real commishioner, one for both sides. Then this person would put a stop to the Yankees mega TV deal and start revenue sharing like football.

Thome25
12-24-2008, 03:46 PM
Baseball needs a real commishioner, one for both sides. Then this person would put a stop to the Yankees mega TV deal and start revenue sharing like football.

I agree.....someone that is tough and hard-nosed on both sides.....like David Stern in the NBA or Roger Goodell in the NFL.

EndemicSox
12-24-2008, 03:56 PM
When it comes to sports, I'm all for a level playing field...something needs to be done, but due to the power of the player's union, pigs will fly before a salary cap is implemented.

kittle42
12-24-2008, 04:02 PM
It still does nothing but guarantee the owners profit margins.

And level the playing field.

Daver
12-24-2008, 04:07 PM
And level the playing field.

There is no guarantee of that, did the two highest payroll's play in the World Series this year?

Scottiehaswheels
12-24-2008, 04:13 PM
I think they should install a floor set at whatever the revenue sharing money allocation is each year. That way owners are incentivized to build the team up as their profit will be derived from sources other than the revenue sharing #'s.

kittle42
12-24-2008, 04:19 PM
There is no guarantee of that, did the two highest payroll's play in the World Series this year?

I shall first address your apostrophe misuse. Why does everyone insist on putting "'s" everywhere? There, it's addressed.

No, of course they didn't. But I'd like for you to make a case for the MLB current system over the NFL current system. The NFL's system has a much better chance of bringing parity. No one complains because some "rich" team is gobbling up all the players. That, while not guaranteeing results, sure as hell helps a lot.

thomas35forever
12-24-2008, 04:26 PM
Without a cap on revenue, the addition of a cap to expenses will do one thing - fatten up the fat cats even more.
Yes. With the Yankees just spending money on FAs at will this offseason, it's not fair for other teams that want to negotiate with the top players on the market. Then again, if the Yankees fail to win it all again in '09, they'll still get hit with a luxury tax and fans of the other 29 teams will be happy. Still though, the Yankees have made some outrageous signings before, but this offseason is crazy even for them. Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixeira better lift the Yankees to another world title and probably a dynasty if this signings are to be justified.

Daver
12-24-2008, 04:27 PM
I shall first address your apostrophe misuse. Why does everyone insist on putting "'s" everywhere? There, it's addressed.

No, of course they didn't. But I'd like for you to make a case for the MLB current system over the NFL current system. The NFL's system has a much better chance of bringing parity. No one complains because some "rich" team is gobbling up all the players. That, while not guaranteeing results, sure as hell helps a lot.

You can't compare the two sports, the NFL shares all revenue, MLB does not.

Craig Grebeck
12-24-2008, 04:31 PM
I shall first address your apostrophe misuse. Why does everyone insist on putting "'s" everywhere? There, it's addressed.

No, of course they didn't. But I'd like for you to make a case for the MLB current system over the NFL current system. The NFL's system has a much better chance of bringing parity. No one complains because some "rich" team is gobbling up all the players. That, while not guaranteeing results, sure as hell helps a lot.
Teams that don't spend what the Yankees or Red Sox spend aren't at a disadvantage. If they were, the results would show that.

btrain929
12-24-2008, 04:48 PM
Teams that don't spend what the Yankees or Red Sox spend aren't at a disadvantage. If they were, the results would show that.

While the disadvantage isn't insurmountable, teams that don't spend a lot of money are still at a slight disadvantage. Look at the teams in the top half of the league in payroll, and compare them to the teams in the bottom half. Big difference as far as the quality of teams. And while the Tampa Bay Ray's story in 2008 was special, they still lost in the WS to a Phillies team with a $98MIL payroll.

itsnotrequired
12-24-2008, 04:54 PM
Do whatever the NFL does. It works there, unless you're the Lions.

the nfl is considering removing the salary cap.

as a percentage of industry revenues, mlb's player payroll expenses are the lowest amongst the "big four" sports. and this includes the whole minor league system, something the other sports don't really have.

no cap = more money for players and owners.

kittle42
12-24-2008, 04:57 PM
You can't compare the two sports, the NFL shares all revenue, MLB does not.

I and others here advocating the same cap also are advocating the revenue sharing, but obviously that isn't going to happen with individual team TV deals, etc. However, how does the implementation of a cap and floor without a shift in the revenue sharing not work?

jabrch
12-24-2008, 05:01 PM
There is no guarantee of that, did the two highest payroll's play in the World Series this year?


If the game were "who has the highest payroll" - they would have. But you actually have to play the games - and win - this is true. The problem is that there is a very strong correlation between being able to go out every year and win 90+ games, and having a big payroll. There is also a strong correlation between payroll and attendence.

Those teams with the most money consistently compete, never need to rebuild, always draw enough to support their payroll, and consistently have a shot at winning it all. Teams like the Marlins have to go for broke, then dump salary, rebuild, and go for broke again. Or they can do it other ways. There is the Tampa way - suck forever - and then maybe a bunch of guys are stars, all at once. There's the Twins way - but nobody replicates that well. In any case, Daver, going into the season, the top 5 most likely to win list usually contains NYY, BOS, LAA, LAD. The Cubs, Mets, etc. are usually right there. Money makes it easier to win.

I'd like Pittsburgh to compete. I'd like the Royals to compete. And I'd like it to be that way every year. Do you not think that if the playing field was more level in terms of spending power, it would be that way?

Daver
12-24-2008, 05:03 PM
I and others here advocating the same cap also are advocating the revenue sharing, but obviously that isn't going to happen with individual team TV deals, etc. However, how does the implementation of a cap and floor without a shift in the revenue sharing not work?

It does work, the owners will be guaranteed their profit margins.

Craig Grebeck
12-24-2008, 05:04 PM
I'd like Pittsburgh to compete. I'd like the Royals to compete. And I'd like it to be that way every year. Do you not think that if the playing field was more level in terms of spending power, it would be that way?
Simply making the Royals and/or Pirates spend more money won't make the playing field any more level.

Dibbs
12-24-2008, 05:07 PM
I just checked the board to pose this same question, and the thread is now here. :smile:

I definitely feel a hard salary cap would be great for the game. It works in other sports. The same teams will be good year after year after year until a cap is in place.

At least the White Sox can spend enough money to be competitive. I would hate being a Royals/Pirates fan etc...I would have to give up on baseball.

itsnotrequired
12-24-2008, 05:18 PM
I just checked the board to pose this same question, and the thread is now here. :smile:

I definitely feel a hard salary cap would be great for the game. It works in other sports. The same teams will be good year after year after year until a cap is in place.

At least the White Sox can spend enough money to be competitive. I would hate being a Royals/Pirates fan etc...I would have to give up on baseball.

8 different teams have won the world series the last 9 years. 8 different teams were AL division winners in the last 3 years. 7 in the NL during the same time frame.

teams like the royals and pirates are consistently bad because their whole organization is bad. bad scouting, bad drafting, bad player development, etc.

EMachine10
12-24-2008, 05:27 PM
Players' greed my foot. They want more money just like I'm sure 95% of us want more money at our jobs.
I'd love to make more than I am now, which isn't anything really because I'm a student, but if I were making 100 million dollars a year, I wouldn't mind signing another contract for 100 million where I'm comfortable and feel good about winning, instead of a 120 million contract in a situation I'm not entirely sure of. What's the difference when you have that much money?

kittle42
12-24-2008, 07:55 PM
I'd love to make more than I am now, which isn't anything really because I'm a student, but if I were making 100 million dollars a year, I wouldn't mind signing another contract for 100 million where I'm comfortable and feel good about winning, instead of a 120 million contract in a situation I'm not entirely sure of. What's the difference when you have that much money?

I was waiting for this.

The difference is when you get used to a certain level of income, you start spending to that level. Money is still money, no matter how much you make. I don't fault the ballplayer wanting $12 mil a year instead of $11 mil a year any more than the employee wanting $12/hr instead of $11/hr.

whitesox901
12-24-2008, 07:57 PM
No way, **** that. I don't care if New York spends all that money, it doesn't drill my wallet

DumpJerry
12-24-2008, 10:58 PM
There is no guarantee of that, did the two highest payroll's play in the World Series this year?
There are two things money can't buy:
1. Love (according to the Beatles)
2. Team chemistry (which is needed to succeed in the regular season and playoffs).

DSpivack
12-24-2008, 11:10 PM
There are two things money can't buy:
1. Love (according to the Beatles)
2. Team chemistry (which is needed to succeed in the regular season and playoffs).

3. Happiness?

DumpJerry
12-24-2008, 11:11 PM
3. Happiness?
It buys happiness. Ask everyone who gets a Wii tomorrow from Santa........

DSpivack
12-24-2008, 11:12 PM
It buys happiness. Ask everyone who gets a Wii tomorrow from Santa........

Who's this Santa character?

I always just got books or clothes for Hanukkah. :whiner:

Daver
12-24-2008, 11:16 PM
2. Team chemistry (which is needed to succeed in the regular season and playoffs).

Team chemistry is a load of crap, the A's that dominated in the 80's hated each other, and it was not exactly a happy place in the Yankees clubhouse in the ninties.

RKMeibalane
12-24-2008, 11:29 PM
Team chemistry is a load of crap, the A's that dominated in the 80's hated each other, and it was not exactly a happy place in the Yankees clubhouse in the ninties.

http://nbcsportsmedia3.msnbc.com/j/ap/18d8abb8-7a11-4e03-8507-fa284e4097b2.hmedium.jpg

"Why is everyone looking at us?"

WhiteSoxFan84
12-25-2008, 12:50 AM
No salary cap (ceiling). No salary floor.
Then it will strictly become a money-making business and nothing else (worse than it is today although many teams are losing money and putting up "for sale" signs).
Salaries will go down which the MLBPA won't agree to.
Owners that want to spend money won't be able to do so freely without worrying about "well if i sign this guy, i might be able to sign that guy".
And the cheaper owners will find a away around the "floor" by doing something like spreading X amount of dollars that would get them to the "floor" around to all their players as "raises" or what not.

Keep things as is. Baseball hasn't had a back-to-back World Series Champion in almost a decade and I'm happy with the way things have been going. Hell, the Rays just made it to the World Series. The Marlins have won 2 World Series Titles in the last 11 years. The Diamondbacks have already won a World Series. The only 2 teams without a title in over 50 years are the Indians and Cubs, would we feel bad if neither team ever wins one again?? :redneck

guillensdisciple
12-25-2008, 02:06 AM
150 million dollar cap. Gives teams who want to spend enough room to add some great players while disallowing teams like the Yankees to buy whoever they want.

Win win right?

EMachine10
12-25-2008, 02:23 AM
I was waiting for this.

The difference is when you get used to a certain level of income, you start spending to that level. Money is still money, no matter how much you make. I don't fault the ballplayer wanting $12 mil a year instead of $11 mil a year any more than the employee wanting $12/hr instead of $11/hr.
When it's at the 12 or 11 dollar level? Yes, every dollar counts. When we're talking 50-100 million dollars, then it's a little different. Do all people think like that? No, but I do, and that's just how I would go about it.

voodoochile
12-25-2008, 01:52 PM
Not without 100% revenue sharing should it even be considered.

It won't lower ticket prices, TV contracts or any other revenue source.

It will merely guarantee profits for the owners.

voodoochile
12-25-2008, 02:04 PM
If you only implement a cap - then yes.

If you implement a cap, a floor, and a manner with which these numbers are tied to composite revenue streams, you can make it more equitable once you figure out what portion of the money the players/owners should get.

What does a floor really do though? A team could get around it by simply paying their high draft picks big bonuses every year or extending their minor league players early. It wouldn't guarantee parity. Last year the Rays started the season with less money spent on payroll than they received in national TC money by a long shot. That's before any other sources were added. Yet that team managed to make it to the WS.

THe Yankees have been the biggest spending team in the majors for a long long time and haven't won a WS since they started making FA and trades the primary means of acquiring talent. A big part of their championship run in the late 90's was due to home grown talent.

Baseball unlike other sports develops their own talent through the minor league systems. Hockey's the only other sport that comes close, but the revenue difference between the two sports is ridiculous. Forcing owners to spend money on the major league team might hamper their ability to actually field a winner because it would force them to stop spending money developing talent. You have to have a serious revenue sharing system first before ANY cap/floor can be even considered and no way would the Yankees allow that...

Railsplitter
12-25-2008, 03:19 PM
I want a salary floor so teams like PIT and FLA are forced to do more than dump players, sit back, and collect checks from MLB.com...

Well said.


I say if some owner is willing to overspend on over-the-hill or injury prone players, let tehm.

Paulwny
12-26-2008, 02:28 PM
THe Yankees have been the biggest spending team in the majors for a long long time and haven't won a WS since they started making FA and trades the primary means of acquiring talent. A big part of their championship run in the late 90's was due to home grown talent.



Wrong, pitching is the name of the game.
The yanks get themselves the biggest gun slinger available in the FA market.
The run in the late 90's was due to the signings of:
Jimmy Key
David Cone
David Wells
El Duque
Roger Clemens
Without some of theses #1 starters the yanks don't see the play-offs.

Paulwny
12-26-2008, 02:38 PM
The yankee payroll is currently ~ $14 mil less than last season.
They still have cash to spend.

voodoochile
12-26-2008, 03:37 PM
Wrong, pitching is the name of the game.
The yanks get themselves the biggest gun slinger available in the FA market.
The run in the late 90's was due to the signings of:
Jimmy Key
David Cone
David Wells
El Duque
Roger Clemens
Without some of theses #1 starters the yanks don't see the play-offs.

A fair point, but they also had Pettitte, Rivera, Posada, Jeter and Williams all in their prime and all guys who started their career with the Yankees. They were all in their prime years and all of them were major contributors to the run of championships.

soxtalker
12-26-2008, 03:53 PM
I don't see the need for it. It seems to me that smart decisions by the GM, a good organization to scout and develop talent, and some luck are more important than having a huge budget.

One of my biggest concerns about a salary cap is that it would dramatically reduce trades. The off-season moves and discussion are quite entertaining.

Paulwny
12-26-2008, 03:54 PM
A fair point, but they also had Pettitte, Rivera, Posada, Jeter and Williams all in their prime and all guys who started their career with the Yankees. They were all in their prime years and all of them were major contributors to the run of championships.


Rivera and Williams were never part of the MLB draft, they went to the higest bidder. The Phils and Pirates offered Williams a contract, he went to the yanks.
Posada. Jeter and Pettite alone don't ever see the playoffs.
They were able to ease Rivera into the closer role by being able to use him as a set up man for "FA" Wetteland who at the time was the best closer in mlb.

WhiteSox5187
12-26-2008, 06:17 PM
Team chemistry is a load of crap, the A's that dominated in the 80's hated each other, and it was not exactly a happy place in the Yankees clubhouse in the ninties.

As did the A's of the 1970s, however chemistry can contribute to teams winning. Teams can mesh together and wind up way over achieving, using the Sox for example we can see that in 1967, 1972, 1977, 1983, 1990, 1993, 1994, 2000, and even in 2005.

Now, daver will probably make some witty one liner about how the '67, '72, '77, '90 and '94 teams didn't win anything, but that doesn't mean they are not good. Also, if today's playoff structure were in place, those teams would have been in the playoffs and could have done some serious damage to the likes of the Red Sox, A's and Yankees. To which Daver will reply that shows why the playoff system instituted now is insane as the best team doesn't always win, to which I will shrug and say "They may not have been the best, but they got the ring, while the best team gets nothing but the satisfaction of knowing they were the best." To this Daver will reply another witty one liner about my intelligence level of baseball which will probably be an ad hominem to which I will not be able to reply.

fusillirob1983
12-26-2008, 08:22 PM
As did the A's of the 1970s, however chemistry can contribute to teams winning. Teams can mesh together and wind up way over achieving, using the Sox for example we can see that in 1967, 1972, 1977, 1983, 1990, 1993, 1994, 2000, and even in 2005.

Now, daver will probably make some witty one liner about how the '67, '72, '77, '90 and '94 teams didn't win anything, but that doesn't mean they are not good. Also, if today's playoff structure were in place, those teams would have been in the playoffs and could have done some serious damage to the likes of the Red Sox, A's and Yankees. To which Daver will reply that shows why the playoff system instituted now is insane as the best team doesn't always win, to which I will shrug and say "They may not have been the best, but they got the ring, while the best team gets nothing but the satisfaction of knowing they were the best." To this Daver will reply another witty one liner about my intelligence level of baseball which will probably be an ad hominem to which I will not be able to reply.

I know my name isn't Daver, but I'll respond anyway. I can't say anything about teams prior to 1991 so I'll just comment on '93, '94, 2000, and 2005 in regards to chemistry. I don't know if chemistry had a lot to do with all those teams being successful. It's probably that they were talented teams. Look at the lineup of the 2000 team. For the most part they hit well from top to bottom. Look at the rotations of the '93, '94, and 2005 teams. During these seasons, they were among the best rotations in baseball.

WhiteSox5187
12-26-2008, 09:03 PM
I know my name isn't Daver, but I'll respond anyway. I can't say anything about teams prior to 1991 so I'll just comment on '93, '94, 2000, and 2005 in regards to chemistry. I don't know if chemistry had a lot to do with all those teams being successful. It's probably that they were talented teams. Look at the lineup of the 2000 team. For the most part they hit well from top to bottom. Look at the rotations of the '93, '94, and 2005 teams. During these seasons, they were among the best rotations in baseball.
That line up more or less stayed intact until the 2004 off season, why then didn't they do more in 2001? Or 2002? The 2000 team VASTLY over achieved, and I think when you have over achieving teams like that, part of the reason they over achieve is chemistry. Now, teams don't have to have chemistry to win, but have you ever heard of chemistry hurting a team? Have you ever heard anyone even suggest "Well, this team is struggling right now because it has too much chemistry." Maybe it's a chicken and egg sceneario where teams develop chemistry because they win. I'm ont sure, but I think chemistry plays SOME part in helping teams win, even if it is a very small part.

Brian26
12-26-2008, 09:36 PM
That line up more or less stayed intact until the 2004 off season, why then didn't they do more in 2001?

To be fair, they went into the bottom of the 9th in Game 7 of the World Series with the lead. They missed winning the World Series by three outs. It's not like they finished in fourth place in the AL East.

WhiteSox5187
12-26-2008, 09:53 PM
To be fair, they went into the bottom of the 9th in Game 7 of the World Series with the lead. They missed winning the World Series by three outs. It's not like they finished in fourth place in the AL East.
Um, I was talking about the White Sox there...so unless I missed out on a HUGE chunk of the 2001 season and post season, no, they didn't!

TDog
12-27-2008, 02:09 AM
... The only 2 teams without a title in over 50 years are the Indians and Cubs, would we feel bad if neither team ever wins one again?? :redneck

The Giants have been in San Francisco for 50 years, and they haven't won a World Series. They came close, but that was not since the year the Angels won it. Really, it is amazing how many different teams get to the world Series. The Rays, the Rockies, the Diamondbacks, the Astros, even the White Sox and the Phillies.

There are plenty of big-payroll teams that don't contend. The Mets have had some success in showing that money doesn't always buy wins. The Tigers went to the World Series, inceased their payroll and haven't come close to going back.

Teams with up-and-coming talent working for big paydays often beat the teams with the big-money free agents. The money teams spend on their developing talent is as important as the money they spend on salaries.

Simple-minded fans and owners who want to increase their profits should be huge fans of salary caps.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-27-2008, 03:35 AM
Simple-minded fans and owners who want to increase their profits should be huge fans of salary caps.

Agreed. And I'm sure you don't mean "simple-minded fans" as an insult, I don't, but it's true. Some of you have no idea what a salary cap is really all about and/or what it would lead to.

And let us not forget that the Yankees and other teams could easily find loop holes around the salary cap. The MLB can also develop the 5/10 rule like the NBA has (if a player has been in the NBA for 10 years and has been on the same team for 5 years, only a certain percentage of his salary counts against the team's salary cap) which would actually be a good thing, but again, a way around the cap.

I like a salary cap in the NFL but there are already rumors that the 2010 or 2011 season (whichever is the one after the current labor agreement contract expires) will be played without a cap in the NFL and we'll see how that goes. But I doubt that'll happen as the NFL is ran and owned by smart people.

The NBA's system is an absolute joke. Just look at the Stephon Marbury situation. The guy is getting paid $27+ million this season to sit around and look ugly on courtside. Guaranteed contracts like his are a joke and he should be forced to donate at least 50% of that money to charity because he doesn't deserve ****. That selfish mother... ahhh man I hate people like him (selfish, greedy, ignorant, arrogant prima donnas).

So in the end, the MLB should stay without a salary cap. The NBA needs to find a way around guaranteed contracts (they can look at the NFL for guidance). And the NFL's system is perfect.

DumpJerry
12-27-2008, 07:04 AM
The MLB can also develop the 5/10 rule like the NBA has (if a player has been in the NBA for 10 years and has been on the same team for 5 years, only a certain percentage of his salary counts against the team's salary cap) which would actually be a good thing, but again, a way around the cap.
MLB has had a 5/10 rule for many years. Just check any "trade Konerko" thread on here for a reminder.

Frater Perdurabo
12-27-2008, 09:29 AM
MLB has had a 5/10 rule for many years. Just check any "trade Konerko" thread on here for a reminder.

As the starter of many of those threads, I know the 5/10 rule all too well. :tongue:

Oblong
12-27-2008, 09:36 AM
Without reading all 5 pages:

Absolutely no salary cap.

Fans have been led to believe that a cap is about fairness and equity. It's not. Baseball's had 7 champions in the last 8 years. Without looking it up I bet more than half the teams have made the playoffs in the last 10 years in a sport where only 8 out of 30 make it. There's no need for parity. We have it already. You do not need to spend the most money to have success.

Salary Caps are nothing but self protection for the owners to keep themselves in check. They have no self control. It's true purpose is to keep costs down so that they can be assured of pocketing more money.

I'd hate to see baseball become a game of trading salary slots instead of players, of my team not being able to trade for a guy or sign a guy if they want to because of a salary cap.

I feel no loss because some other team spends $300 million on their team. A big chunk of that cost is for players who aren't really that good anymore so the joke's on them.

BadBobbyJenks
12-27-2008, 02:21 PM
How will the Marlins, Twins and Devil Rays ever compete with out a cap?

Flight #24
12-27-2008, 05:30 PM
To me, it's a misconception that a cap is about ensuring parity. There is no system that can do that. I am in favor of any system that helps ensure that success is due to the skill of a team's front office and players rather than the luck of where they're located. Right now, teams like the Pirates, Rays, Twins need to basically have near-perfect drafting & development systems just to have a shot at competing. Meanwhile teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Angels, Dodgers can buy their way into competing, can draft the players that teams want the most, and can cover any mistakes easily simply because they have access to a resource base that dwarfs many other teams.

People say "a cap doesn't guarantee teams can compete", and cite the Cardinals - well, to me the Cardinals are proof of why a cap works. They're bad because they're mismanaged, not because they're in a smaller town than say the Giants. As a fan, that's what I want because management and ownership can change.

For that reason, I support a cap and a floor. And as important or moreso, either a draft pick salary scale or at least the ability to freely trade picks so that small market teams can actually maximize the value of their picks rather than passing on guys for "signability" reasons, which becomes just another way in which big market teams can leverage their resource base.

(And for the record, I also support increased revenue sharing, but because as a fan I don't give a damn about whether the teams & owners mint money or not, I focus more on the cap/floor than that.)

voodoochile
12-27-2008, 05:35 PM
How will the Marlins, Twins and Devil Rays ever compete with out a cap?

:tealpolice:

Daver
12-27-2008, 05:39 PM
How will the Marlins, Twins and Devil Rays ever compete with out a cap?

With a salary Cap and floor those teams would be forced into bankruptcy.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-27-2008, 09:49 PM
MLB has had a 5/10 rule for many years. Just check any "trade Konerko" thread on here for a reminder.

The MLB's 5/10 rule and the NBA's 5/10 rule maybe similar when it comes to vetoing a trade, but the MLB doesn't have the salary cap exemption portion in it's 5/10 rule like the NBA does. Mainly because the MLB has no salary cap :redneck

Oblong
12-27-2008, 10:40 PM
Right now, teams like the Pirates, Rays, Twins need to basically have near-perfect drafting & development systems just to have a shot at competing.

I'm not so sure that's true. I think it's just a case where those teams decide they don't want to be big spenders. They could be if they wanted to.

According to this Forbe's (http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/16/baseball-team-values-biz-sports-baseball08-cx_mo_kb_0416baseballintro.html) article, baseball brought in $5.5 billion last year. And I don't think that counts the revenues teams like the Yankees and Red Sox get from their TV networks. Crudely speaking, that leaves $180,000,000 in revenue per team and the article says average operating costs are $16 million.

My point is, these guys are making a fortune. If they're being "cheap" it's by choice.

What has to be understood is that the teams are not business competitors but business partners. The competition is artificial. It's like one Pizza Hut store competing against another Pizza Hut over the best delivery times. At the end of the day the money all goes into the same pot and they both win. The "winning" store doesn't make more money than the other. They just get a plaque.

Daver
12-27-2008, 10:47 PM
Forbes is not always entirely accurate, I take it with a grain of salt.

That being said Jeffrey Loria is an expert at milking every last dime out of a baseball franchise, he is so good at it he forced MLB to buy his last franchise out of bankruptcy and gift him the money to buy the Marlins.

35th and Shields
12-27-2008, 10:52 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you. I have been one of the posters on here to point out that of the last 8 WS winners, a majority of them have been mid to low payroll teams. Even the teams to lose the WS have been mid to low payroll as well.

There is still a problem though when there is such a wide gap between the Yankees and every other team when it comes to revenue and payroll. You also have pressure from the players union for players to take the highest bid possible rather than the deal from the team they want to stay with. Bottom line is, there's problems on both sides of the coin and they need to be fixed for the sake of the fans and the game itself.

See, this is the argument that I just don't understand. "they haven't won in 8 years". When did winning the world series every 8 years become the league average? The yankees have missed the playoffs one time since then and all of sudden they suck because they overpay or don't spend their money wisely. But you know what, bad contracts don't hurt they yankees the way they hurt everyone else in the sport. Even the red sox have said they couldn't commit the money the yankees did. It's an unfair advantage that falls directly on the MLB for letting the yankees do this year after year.

Oblong
12-27-2008, 11:10 PM
Forbes is not always entirely accurate, I take it with a grain of salt.

That being said Jeffrey Loria is an expert at milking every last dime out of a baseball franchise, he is so good at it he forced MLB to buy his last franchise out of bankruptcy and gift him the money to buy the Marlins.

Loria is more damaging to baseball than the Yankees are.

Why pay for something yourself when you can get the state/county/city to do it? It's guys like him that are the problem where the goal isn't the year to year to success. That's just gravy. It's the overall investment and value of the franchise. Get your new stadium and suddenly you are worth a half a billion dollars. Who cares about the standings and on the field results. That's just riff raff.

As for the Yankee contracts... it's not like the yankees were the only ones offering huge deals to these guys.

btrain929
12-28-2008, 01:17 AM
Loria is more damaging to baseball than the Yankees are.

Why pay for something yourself when you can get the state/county/city to do it? It's guys like him that are the problem where the goal isn't the year to year to success. That's just gravy. It's the overall investment and value of the franchise. Get your new stadium and suddenly you are worth a half a billion dollars. Who cares about the standings and on the field results. That's just riff raff.

As for the Yankee contracts... it's not like the yankees were the only ones offering huge deals to these guys.

Good call. The Braves were right there for Burnett with a similar deal, and it was reported the Nationals might have offered more to Tex than the Yanks did.

35th and Shields
12-28-2008, 01:26 AM
Good call. The Braves were right there for Burnett with a similar deal, and it was reported the Nationals might have offered more to Tex than the Yanks did.

Yes but those other teams weren't going to sign 3 or 4 guys all well over the 100 mil mark

AZChiSoxFan
12-29-2008, 05:03 PM
See, this is the argument that I just don't understand. "they haven't won in 8 years". When did winning the world series every 8 years become the league average? The yankees have missed the playoffs one time since then and all of sudden they suck because they overpay or don't spend their money wisely. But you what, bad contracts don't hurt they yankees the way they hurt everyone else in the sport. Even the red sox have said they couldn't commit the money the yankees did. It's an unfair advantage that falls directly on the MLB for letting the yankees do this year after year.

IMO, when you have far and away the biggest payroll every year, 8 years without a title IS a long time.

veeter
12-29-2008, 05:19 PM
I voted yes because I think the Sox GM would absolutely thrive under those conditions.

Moses_Scurry
12-30-2008, 09:02 AM
The cap would have to be 50 million for Pittsburgh and Florida to see any benefit from it. The players association would tell everyone to go to Japan before that would happen.

The only way a cap would work in my opinion is if they had a floor that was not much lower than the cap, something like a 100 million floor and 150 million cap. Then they tell the owners that cry poor to sell to someone who will pay it. Small market teams fold or move.

This is NOT a good solution. This is just the only way a salary cap will work in my opinion.

Flight #24
12-30-2008, 09:50 AM
The cap would have to be 50 million for Pittsburgh and Florida to see any benefit from it. The players association would tell everyone to go to Japan before that would happen.

The only way a cap would work in my opinion is if they had a floor that was not much lower than the cap, something like a 100 million floor and 150 million cap. Then they tell the owners that cry poor to sell to someone who will pay it. Small market teams fold or move.

This is NOT a good solution. This is just the only way a salary cap will work in my opinion.

So the current scenario in which the Pirates/Royals exist but below your targeted floor is somehow better?

If, as people have said in this thread and others, Loria, McClatchy, etc are raking it in, then a floor somewhere in the 75-100M mark should be capable of being met. Increased revenue sharing and if necessary, folding/moving teams in markets that can't support the minimum should be fine. I am not of the opinion that a town deserves a team even if that team's payroll/organizational expense can't meet whatever is determined as the minimum requirement to compete.

Again - it's not about ensuring parity, it's about making competitiveness due to the caliber of the org rather than the size of the market. And having the caliber of the org enable you to actually be a title contender rather than simply occasionally making the playoffs if you hit on all cylinders (i.e. the Twins).

And for all those who cite the Marlins - when have they won the title? When they dramatically increased payroll, albiet temporarily. The big difference between the Yanks/BoSox and most of the rest is that while FLA can do that once in a while but pay for it by selling off assets and guaranteeing suckage for a while after, the big market teams can simply continue to write those checks (and can write them at lower risk than other teams since they can eat the contracts if they don't work out).

IspepAloc
12-30-2008, 10:51 AM
Do whatever the NFL does. It works there, unless you're the Lions.

I was going to make this suggestion as well. Every year seems to bring new teams to the playoffs and allows for every team to be competitive. The only problem I see here is there are still going to be teams that won't put any money into their team.

If MLB would put a $150 million cap there would only be a small % of teams that are over the cap. Correct?

Oblong
12-30-2008, 12:23 PM
A salary floor is a little counter productive because what happens if a team has a great few years of drafting and can field a championship caliber team full of mostly protected players? Are they then supposed to just go overpay for someone they don't want just to put them above the floor? How does that solve anything?

And for all those who cite the Marlins - when have they won the title? When they dramatically increased payroll, albiet temporarily. The big difference between the Yanks/BoSox and most of the rest is that while FLA can do that once in a while but pay for it by selling off assets and guaranteeing suckage for a while after, the big market teams can simply continue to write those checks (and can write them at lower risk than other teams since they can eat the contracts if they don't work out).

The 2003 Marlins didn't have a high payroll. I think Ivan Rodriguez was their highest paid player at $10 million. That was about 25% of their payroll.

And they didn't sell off assets to pay for anything. They need to look poor so that they can have someone else pay for their stadium. It's not because of a lack of funding for their baseball operations.


It's no big loss for me as a fan that the Yankees overpay guys like Jeter, Giambi, Pavano, Posada, Damon and take on a fat Sabathia for 7 years and an injury prone Burnett for 5. (Granted, maybe Jeter's not overpaid when you consider the marketing impact, but as a player, I think he's overpaid)

Like I said earlier, the joke's on them. In a way I prefer it because it keeps them off my favorite team for those ridiculous numbers. Too bad they weren't dumb enough to give Sheffield his extension in 2006.

Daver
12-30-2008, 12:24 PM
So the current scenario in which the Pirates/Royals exist but below your targeted floor is somehow better?

If, as people have said in this thread and others, Loria, McClatchy, etc are raking it in, then a floor somewhere in the 75-100M mark should be capable of being met. Increased revenue sharing and if necessary, folding/moving teams in markets that can't support the minimum should be fine. I am not of the opinion that a town deserves a team even if that team's payroll/organizational expense can't meet whatever is determined as the minimum requirement to compete.

Again - it's not about ensuring parity, it's about making competitiveness due to the caliber of the org rather than the size of the market. And having the caliber of the org enable you to actually be a title contender rather than simply occasionally making the playoffs if you hit on all cylinders (i.e. the Twins).

And for all those who cite the Marlins - when have they won the title? When they dramatically increased payroll, albiet temporarily. The big difference between the Yanks/BoSox and most of the rest is that while FLA can do that once in a while but pay for it by selling off assets and guaranteeing suckage for a while after, the big market teams can simply continue to write those checks (and can write them at lower risk than other teams since they can eat the contracts if they don't work out).

So Minnesota, a team with a history of being competetive, should be forced into bankruptcy because you don't like the way the Yankees spend?

That is simply brilliant!

jabrch
12-30-2008, 12:34 PM
So Minnesota, a team with a history of being competetive, should be forced into bankruptcy because you don't like the way the Yankees spend?

That is simply brilliant!

I would say we need better revenue sharing, like the NFL has, so that this wouldn't be the case. Right now the Yanks are able to spend what they spend, and likely still turn a reasonable profit (just guessing) because their revenue supports it. If MLB truly wanted to keep all 30 teams and make them all viable economic entities as well as competitive on the field, the playing field needs to somehow be leveled. Right now, it is unfair. Only immense loyalty from fans keep it going. Eventually that will degrade in many markets and we will see some teams collapse.

DumpJerry
12-30-2008, 12:49 PM
All this talk of parity is malarkey. In the NFL, it is a somewhat feasible goal because with a 16 game schedule, a couple wins one way or the other can keep the standings tight. In MLB with ten times as many games, it is a mathematical impossibility. In order to achieve parity in MLB, teams would have to routinely have ten game winning streaks (the equivalent of one NFL game). The last time the Sox won ten in a row was in 1976 (yes, thirty two years ago).

One NFL game=10% of the team's games for the year. Each individual NFL carries much more weight in the standings than even five MLB games do.

Oblong
12-30-2008, 01:09 PM
Besides, wouldn't it be boring if we had parity and most teams were in the 75-85 win range? DJ is right in the comparisons to the NFL. Much smaller margin. Take a few close games and flip them around and a 6 win team becomes a playoff team. Also with the rigid structure of football in general and the overall nature of it being a much more team sport, it's a sport where coaches and systems can have a dramatic difference. Baseball doesn't have that. It's a long season and still an individual game. You don't hire a new manager and coaching staff and suddenly play the game different.

The best single solution would be to put a third (or even fourth) team in the NYC market.

All the teams have enough revenue to be competitive. They're just either too incompetent to do it or don't really care if they are, they'd rather make the money than risk it by paying higher salaries. The Yankees and Red Sox do not prevent teams like the Pirates or Royals from drafting and obtaining young players.

russ99
12-30-2008, 01:30 PM
I wonder if a MLS-like system might work... With a set number of players per team who have no salary limit, let's say 4 for argument's sake, and the rest of the roster is subject to a cap. We'd also need a modest floor, to keep owners honest.

But no kind of cap will be possible with this union, especially considering the record profits ownership has pulled in the last few years, mostly due to the online products and site/store consolidation.

thedudeabides
12-30-2008, 01:37 PM
So Minnesota, a team with a history of being competetive, should be forced into bankruptcy because you don't like the way the Yankees spend?

That is simply brilliant!

No, but a modest floor would help avoid owners pocketing money from revenue sharing. I think it could also help teams keep their home grown talent, which alienates fans less.

TDog
12-30-2008, 02:12 PM
Do whatever the NFL does. It works there, unless you're the Lions.

This is unrealistic. NFL players are screwed by the financial structure of the sport because the union is so weak. The players can't strike for a better collective bargaining agreement because the average career in the NFL is so brief. Go on strike and the league can easily find people to replace you. Even if the league doesn't, a short strike could cripple your career because there are plenty of college football players graduating, or at least running out of eligibility, who will be competing with you at the start of the new season.

The threat of strike is not as frightening to NFL owners. Fans may care, but most wouldn't care enough to be done with the NFL. Football is a relative sport with college football being a big television game despite the drop off in the skills of the players. Baseball is more of a sport where individual skills are highlighted. If you had to replace all of the current players in a professional league with new ones, the watchability of baseball would suffer for more than the quality of football (not that I could sit through a football game under any circumstances, but many NFL fans would continue to watch their replacement teams).

The baseball players' union is strong enough that they aren't going to put up with the treatment that football players are stuck with. I would love to see an NFL strike on principle, but the players are stuck with the salary cap and non-guaranteed contracts because it isn't going to happen.

Baseball players certainly aren't going to allow themselves to be treated the way football players are.

Frater Perdurabo
12-30-2008, 06:23 PM
The best single solution would be to put a third (or even fourth) team in the NYC market.

Yes. One in New Jersey and one in Connecticut.

Frater Perdurabo
12-30-2008, 06:24 PM
:tomatoaward:

Flight #24
12-30-2008, 08:48 PM
So Minnesota, a team with a history of being competetive, should be forced into bankruptcy because you don't like the way the Yankees spend?

That is simply brilliant!

Seriously? There's no possible cap/floor combo that would allow teams to be competitive? The fact that there is no cap and the Spankees/BloSawx can inflate top tier player salaries has no impact on how much teams spend at the other end and what they set their budgets at?

I'm not saying $100M is the right #, but there are #s that would allow a reasonable floor, and ways to structure a floor such that rebuilding teams could operate effectively (i.e. the floor is something you need to average on a rolling 3-year basis - NOTE: THIS IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, MAY WELL HAVE ISSUES BUT IT'S AN EXAMPLE).

If the issue is purely a revenue disparity, then redistribute or let the Yanks, etc mint more money. I don't care. If the issue is teams like the Twins not spending to their ability, then set the floor higher. Either way, I don't really care - as long as the location (i.e. inherent revenue base) isn't what's providing a significant portio of the competitive advantage.



Baseball players certainly aren't going to allow themselves to be treated the way football players are.
Yes, the sport in which total player salaries were $2.37B (53 man roster x 32 teams x $1.4M avg salary) is screwing their guys relative to the one in which total player salaries were $2.36B (25 man roster x 30 teams x $3.15 avg salary). Forget that Baseball has a huge advantage (10x) in actual games played, that Football's TV contract dwarfs baseball's, or that football contracts tend to reflect actual earned performance than baseball's because they're not guaranteed. The football players get screwed because they cooperated with management to actually grow the sport.


Yes. One in New Jersey and one in Connecticut.
This would accomplish much of what a cap/floor system would - eliminate the underlying revenue disparity that lets teams "luck" into significant resource advantages and return things to a skill-based derby. I would be in favor of this but in its absence think a floor/cap system would improve things.

Daver
12-30-2008, 09:03 PM
Seriously? There's no possible cap/floor combo that would allow teams to be competitive? The fact that there is no cap and the Spankees/BloSawx can inflate top tier player salaries has no impact on how much teams spend at the other end and what they set their budgets at?

I'm not saying $100M is the right #, but there are #s that would allow a reasonable floor, and ways to structure a floor such that rebuilding teams could operate effectively (i.e. the floor is something you need to average on a rolling 3-year basis - NOTE: THIS IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, MAY WELL HAVE ISSUES BUT IT'S AN EXAMPLE).

If the issue is purely a revenue disparity, then redistribute or let the Yanks, etc mint more money. I don't care. If the issue is teams like the Twins not spending to their ability, then set the floor higher. Either way, I don't really care - as long as the location (i.e. inherent revenue base) isn't what's providing a significant portio of the competitive advantage.

Why would the small market teams give a rats ass about what the Yankees spend? They have their budget set on their revenue, and keep in mind, shared revenue is distributed in inequal portions, teams are given a percentage that is based solely on the discretion of the commisioner. A cap guarantees profits, a floor and a cap guarantees profits and drives the small players out of business.


Yes, the sport in which total player salaries were $2.37B (53 man roster x 32 teams x $1.4M avg salary) is screwing their guys relative to the one in which total player salaries were $2.36B (25 man roster x 30 teams x $3.15 avg salary). Forget that Baseball has a huge advantage (10x) in actual games played, that Football's TV contract dwarfs baseball's, or that football contracts tend to reflect actual earned performance than baseball's because they're not guaranteed. The football players get screwed because they cooperated with management to actually grow the sport.
Those numbers are meaningless because the method used to achieve them does not reflect anything based in reality.

This would accomplish much of what a cap/floor system would - eliminate the underlying revenue disparity that lets teams "luck" into significant resource advantages and return things to a skill-based derby. I would be in favor of this but in its absence think a floor/cap system would improve things.

Putting another team in New York makes far more sense than anything you have proposed in this post.

Flight #24
12-30-2008, 09:40 PM
Why would the small market teams give a rats ass about what the Yankees spend? They have their budget set on their revenue, and keep in mind, shared revenue is distributed in inequal portions, teams are given a percentage that is based solely on the discretion of the commisioner. A cap guarantees profits, a floor and a cap guarantees profits and drives the small players out of business.



Ummm.....because their current budgets don't allow for them to target bigname players? Because even if they stretch their budget to sign/resign guys, the revenue and resulting talent disparity make the risk great enough that it's not worth the gamble for them?

I don't care if the owners profit more or less. I only care if teams have almost exclusively luck-based resource advantages that significantly skew the playing field. That is currently the case. Whether or not a floor/cap drive smaller players out of business or simply let larger players mint money is purely dependent on where the cap is. The Twins payroll the past few years has hovered in the 56-72M range. If the floor was at $85-90M I cannot believe they'd go bankrupt. (For the record, I would support increased revenue sharing as well to help raise the floor.)

The underlying assumption is that if teams can compete successfully by spending within their means, they will. I have yet to see an argument as to why a team that has to spend to the floor will not try to do so in a way that maximizes their ability to compete. Sure, you may have isolated instances in which teams overpay a schmuck to meet the floor but that will almost certainly be on a short-term deal so that they can better utilize that same expenditure when the opportunity comes available.

Daver
12-30-2008, 09:50 PM
I don't care if the owners profit more or less. I only care if teams have almost exclusively luck-based resource advantages that significantly skew the playing field. That is currently the case. Whether or not a floor/cap drive smaller players out of business or simply let larger players mint money is purely dependent on where the cap is. The Twins payroll the past few years has hovered in the 56-72M range. If the floor was at $85-90M I cannot believe they'd go bankrupt. (For the record, I would support increased revenue sharing as well to help raise the floor.)


You really should do some research on Carl Pohlad, he'd declare bankruptcy in a second if he could turn a profit on it, see Loria, Jeffrey for an example.

Now back to this fantasy that a salary cap can do anything other than guarantee profit margins, no one has shown me anything that comes close to proving this is true with the revenue conditions as they exist right now in MLB.

Madscout
12-30-2008, 10:23 PM
The thing that is nice about the NFL's system is that you are just as likely to see stars as a Brown or a Cardinal as you are as a Bear or a Giant. I would like that in the MLB.

Daver
12-30-2008, 10:27 PM
The thing that is nice about the NFL's system is that you are just as likely to see stars as a Brown or a Cardinal as you are as a Bear or a Giant. I would like that in the MLB.

The small market teams produce plenty of star players, so what is your point?

Madscout
12-30-2008, 10:29 PM
You really should do some research on Carl Pohlad, he'd declare bankruptcy in a second if he could turn a profit on it, see Loria, Jeffrey for an example.

Now back to this fantasy that a salary cap can do anything other than guarantee profit margins, no one has shown me anything that comes close to proving this is true with the revenue conditions as they exist right now in MLB.
And nobody can, as once you get an idea in your head, you stick to it. My advice, stop trying to convince this guy.

Madscout
12-30-2008, 10:31 PM
The small market teams produce plenty of star players, so what is your point?
And they can't hold on to them. Do you think Peyton Manning is ever going to leave Indy? How 'bout LT in SD? How long did it take Farve to leave GB, and it wasn't because they couldn't pay him.

Daver
12-30-2008, 10:31 PM
And nobody can, as once you get an idea in your head, you stick to it. My advice, stop trying to convince this guy.Tired of making arguments you can't win?

Daver
12-30-2008, 10:35 PM
And they can't hold on to them. Do you think Peyton Manning is ever going to leave Indy? How 'bout LT in SD? How long did it take Farve to leave GB, and it wasn't because they couldn't pay him.

It takes six years of service time in MLB to achieve FA status, how many years does it take in the NFL?

And why are we comparing apples to coconuts? Perhaps because you can't come up with a legitimate argument?

Craig Grebeck
12-30-2008, 10:36 PM
And they can't hold on to them. Do you think Peyton Manning is ever going to leave Indy? How 'bout LT in SD? How long did it take Farve to leave GB, and it wasn't because they couldn't pay him.
This is starting to change. See: Ramirez, Hanley and Longoria, Evan.

Madscout
12-30-2008, 10:46 PM
Tired of making arguments you can't win?
It is hard to win when you dodge the facts. We also look at things differently. I look at the results we have now. You look at rules are in place and try to prove stupid any new ideas that people come up to make things better,and you don't ever offer a solution of your own, but simply deny a problem when it stares you in the face.

WhiteSox5187
12-30-2008, 10:46 PM
Tired of making arguments you can't win?
Daver, with all due respect, have you EVER admitted to being wrong on this board? You don't really argue, someone could come up with a ton of stats to prove their point and then you would just make a sarcastic one liner and ignore the argument entirely.

Flight #24
12-30-2008, 10:47 PM
You really should do some research on Carl Pohlad, he'd declare bankruptcy in a second if he could turn a profit on it, see Loria, Jeffrey for an example.


That's the point. The floor needs to be set such that a winning team in a small market makes money after payroll. I have yet to see anything that tells me that Carl Pohlad will prefer to make about the same money and lose than win.

You and I have had these debates going on years, nothing really shifts much - I guess we're both too old to learn new tricks.

WhiteSox5187
12-30-2008, 10:48 PM
This is starting to change. See: Ramirez, Hanley and Longoria, Evan.
And when they become free agents and the Yankees offer them $100 million dollars, what then?

For the record, I think that this problem as we see it now is exacerbated by the current economy as it will effect just about every team except Boston and New York. But I don't think a salary cap is a bad idea provided there is a salary floor.

Daver
12-30-2008, 10:50 PM
That's the point. The floor needs to be set such that a winning team in a small market makes money after payroll. I have yet to see anything that tells me that Carl Pohlad will prefer to make about the same money and lose than win.

You and I have had these debates going on years, nothing really shifts much - I guess we're both too old to learn new tricks.

Carl Pohlad was ready to sign on the dotted line to end the existence of the Twins till the MLBPA stepped in and stopped it, if that is not proof that the man cares about nothing but profit what is?

Craig Grebeck
12-30-2008, 10:52 PM
That's the point. The floor needs to be set such that a winning team in a small market makes money after payroll. I have yet to see anything that tells me that Carl Pohlad will prefer to make about the same money and lose than win.

You and I have had these debates going on years, nothing really shifts much - I guess we're both too old to learn new tricks.
A floor is a horrible idea. Forcing teams to put money into payroll rather than scouting/player development/international signings is asinine.

And when they become free agents and the Yankees offer them $100 million dollars, what then?

For the record, I think that this problem as we see it now is exacerbated by the current economy as it will effect just about every team except Boston and New York. But I don't think a salary cap is a bad idea provided there is a salary floor.
By the time Hanley Ramirez hits free agency, he'll be on the wrong side of his peak. Sometimes, losing a guy to a team willing to spend unheard of amounts isn't a bad thing. If you want to force guys to stay with the same team for years and years, you're hurting the players and helping the owners. It didn't work for a long time, and it won't work now.

Daver
12-30-2008, 10:52 PM
Daver, with all due respect, have you EVER admitted to being wrong on this board? You don't really argue, someone could come up with a ton of stats to prove their point and then you would just make a sarcastic one liner and ignore the argument entirely.

I don't argue with points that have nothing to do with the debate, there is a difference.

Madscout
12-30-2008, 10:54 PM
I don't argue with points that have nothing to do with the debate, there is a difference.
And you just proved his point.

Daver
12-30-2008, 10:55 PM
And you just proved his point.

What, that most of you can't stay on topic, yes I can agree to that.

WhiteSox5187
12-30-2008, 11:23 PM
What, that most of you can't stay on topic, yes I can agree to that.
Daver, I don't read every post you have written, but let's take say the "Fields for Roberts" argument from before the start of the 2008 season; now, I don't know where exactly you fell on that argument but a typical sort of banter with you would be akin to something like
Daver:
"Brian Roberts is an awful baseball player and not ideal for the Sox."

Random Poster:
"really because I think he would be a nice addition."

Daver:
"You don't know much about baseball do you?"

Random Poster:
"Possibly not, but I do know that he has an average of a .355 OBP with 38 steals a year, and boy, the Sox just don't seem to have a leadoff hitter right now and Roberts would be a nice addition."

Daver:
The propeller head stats you have provided are comedic gold.

Now, obviously Daver you know a hell of a lot about baseball and have forgotten more about the game than I can ever hope to know and I haven't read everyone of your posts and I'm sure that you are very good at stating your argument and in fact are probably right more often than not; but it just seems to me these sarcastic one liners aren't exactly conducive to a good discussion about the pro's and con's of acquiring any given player.

Granted about 99% of the conversations on this board are not exactly conducive to such a discussion, but I've noticed that you seldom seem to quote the very good (or in my case, barely adequate) arguments. For example, I couldn't disagree any more with guys like kittle42 and Craig Grebeck about a variety ideas about the game (such as which stats are important, how do you want to build a line up, etc. etc.), but they give very thorough arguments (Grebeck uses charts, and how the hell is anyone going to mount an effective argument against a chart for God's sake?).

Of course, if you're like me, you have a lot of time on your hands and can look up the necessary stats and write very long posts about these things. I know that you are very responsible in keeping this site as wonderful as it is, plus I'm certain you have other time commitments so in the grand scheme of things, writing a response to some trade proposal is not exactly priority number one for you. For me though it's a bit annoying to attempt to give an opinion on why we should do this, or do that, or why this argument makes sense to me only to have it so quickly dismissed with a one lined response...granted 99% of the time these lines are in fact hilarious and do get your point across (and I'm eagerly awaiting the one lined response to this post), but it would be nice to have you share some of your vast knowledge of the game. There are a lot of things that we disagree on, and I think it would be useful (to me at least and I'm sure there are countless others here that would appreciate it as well) if you would share some of this knowledge. For example, how would you build a line up? Or what do you think the Sox should do for CF? Things like that. That's just my mild complaint, though of things i would change in the world, it nears the bottom of the list. In fact, of things I would change in my life, it is perhaps at the bottom of the list.

Daver
12-30-2008, 11:39 PM
Daver, I don't read every post you have written, but let's take say the "Fields for Roberts" argument from before the start of the 2008 season; now, I don't know where exactly you fell on that argument but a typical sort of banter with you would be akin to something like
Daver:
"Brian Roberts is an awful baseball player and not ideal for the Sox."

Random Poster:
"really because I think he would be a nice addition."

Daver:
"You don't know much about baseball do you?"

Random Poster:
"Possibly not, but I do know that he has an average of a .355 OBP with 38 steals a year, and boy, the Sox just don't seem to have a leadoff hitter right now and Roberts would be a nice addition."

Daver:
The propeller head stats you have provided are comedic gold.

Now, obviously Daver you know a hell of a lot about baseball and have forgotten more about the game than I can ever hope to know and I haven't read everyone of your posts and I'm sure that you are very good at stating your argument and in fact are probably right more often than not; but it just seems to me these sarcastic one liners aren't exactly conducive to a good discussion about the pro's and con's of acquiring any given player.

Granted about 99% of the conversations on this board are not exactly conducive to such a discussion, but I've noticed that you seldom seem to quote the very good (or in my case, barely adequate) arguments. For example, I couldn't disagree any more with guys like kittle42 and Craig Grebeck about a variety ideas about the game (such as which stats are important, how do you want to build a line up, etc. etc.), but they give very thorough arguments (Grebeck uses charts, and how the hell is anyone going to mount an effective argument against a chart for God's sake?).

Of course, if you're like me, you have a lot of time on your hands and can look up the necessary stats and write very long posts about these things. I know that you are very responsible in keeping this site as wonderful as it is, plus I'm certain you have other time commitments so in the grand scheme of things, writing a response to some trade proposal is not exactly priority number one for you. For me though it's a bit annoying to attempt to give an opinion on why we should do this, or do that, or why this argument makes sense to me only to have it so quickly dismissed with a one lined response...granted 99% of the time these lines are in fact hilarious and do get your point across (and I'm eagerly awaiting the one lined response to this post), but it would be nice to have you share some of your vast knowledge of the game. There are a lot of things that we disagree on, and I think it would be useful (to me at least and I'm sure there are countless others here that would appreciate it as well) if you would share some of this knowledge. For example, how would you build a line up? Or what do you think the Sox should do for CF? Things like that. That's just my mild complaint, though of things i would change in the world, it nears the bottom of the list. In fact, of things I would change in my life, it is perhaps at the bottom of the list.

I have no opposition to acquiring Brian Roberts.

Hey look, a green car!

drewcifer
12-31-2008, 12:34 AM
Holy Ass, that was a big post.

TDog
12-31-2008, 02:30 AM
...
Yes, the sport in which total player salaries were $2.37B (53 man roster x 32 teams x $1.4M avg salary) is screwing their guys relative to the one in which total player salaries were $2.36B (25 man roster x 30 teams x $3.15 avg salary). Forget that Baseball has a huge advantage (10x) in actual games played, that Football's TV contract dwarfs baseball's, or that football contracts tend to reflect actual earned performance than baseball's because they're not guaranteed. The football players get screwed because they cooperated with management to actually grow the sport. ...

Football players' contracts aren't guaranteed. Football careers are markedly shorter than baseball careers. The players didn't "cooperate with management to actually grow the sport." The owners effectively broke the union. Even so, the NFL's success with fans of the sport has nothing to do with the league's agreement with the players' union. The salary cap is more likely to assrue mediocrity than foster great teams. Because football is a relative sport, it doesn't matter much anyway.

Regardless, advocating a salary cap for baseball is unrealistic. It isn't going to happen unless the owners shut the game down for entire seasons to break the union. I don't want that to happen. Really, I don't, because baseball doesn't need a salary cap.

Parrothead
12-31-2008, 07:57 AM
Regardless, advocating a salary cap for baseball is unrealistic. It isn't going to happen unless the owners shut the game down for entire seasons to break the union. I don't want that to happen. Really, I don't, because baseball doesn't need a salary cap.

Sure the cap and total revenue sharing (like football and basketball) is unrealistic, however the owners had their chance in 94 when should have held out longer in the last strike, the point of it was lost. Economic sanity needs to return to baseball. I would love to see a few teams have to declare bankruptcy (but not right now due to there are currently enough lost jobs). The haves are basically eliminating their competition before the season starts, sure every once in a while a team overcomes and makes the playoffs but they rarely if at all win. In the current state, money = a better chance at winning.

I have not read the whole thread but it sucks liking Pittsburgh or any other have not right now. Even if they do their scouting and produce great players they can't keep them cause the Yankees, Boston, ect....will just out bid for their services.

DumpJerry
12-31-2008, 08:36 AM
Having spent several years living in Minnesota, let me just say that Carl Pohlad and Bill Wirtz were separated at birth. Twin fans loath Pohlad's very existence and rightly so. He is worth at least $1,000,000,000 liquid. He refuses to spend any of his money on the Twins, this is why despite being in a lucarative market, they maintain a small payroll and depend largely on homegrown talent.

How did Pohlad make his money? TCF Bank. Yeah, the bank that is in every Jewell Store down here.

What took the Twins so long to get out of the Dome (which is hated up there as much as it is here)? Pohlad refused to pay for a new stadium even though he and the team had enough capital to do it. For several years Pohlad told the Minnesota legislature that the taxpayers would have to build a new stadium. Every year, the political leaders (following the lead of the voters) told Pohlad to shove it and pay for one. Finally Pohlad said that if they did not approve a new stadium, the Twins would leave town (sound familiar, Sox fans?). This forced the hand of the legislature and they approved a stadium to prevent the Twins from leaving. They did not want to spend too much money since it was already fairly expensive, so there is no retractable dome, something Pohlad could have paid for with his lunch money.

Pohlad's threat to leave town struck a nerve. I was living up there before the Timberwolves were created and obtaining a NBA franchise was very important to the people of the Twin Cities as it represented validation that they were, indeed, a major metropolitan area. Losing a MLB franchise would have been a huge blow to the area's psyche.

Flight #24
12-31-2008, 09:02 AM
What I said:
I have yet to see anything that tells me that Carl Pohlad will prefer to make about the same money and lose than win.

Your response:
Carl Pohlad was ready to sign on the dotted line to end the existence of the Twins till the MLBPA stepped in and stopped it, if that is not proof that the man cares about nothing but profit what is?

You're sidestepping the primary point. No one disputes that Pohlad would sell his mother to make a profit. The point is whether in a system where he can make a profit and win or make a profit and tread water - why would he not try to win?

Flight #24
12-31-2008, 09:05 AM
A floor is a horrible idea. Forcing teams to put money into payroll rather than scouting/player development/international signings is asinine.



Any workable floor would have to include some sense of player development costs, or you simply shift the game from "overpaying/signing the best FA" to "overpaying/signing the highest potential prospects". This is already happening where teams pass on players they would otherwise draft because of "signability" and larger payroll teams get guys who would otherwise go at the top of the draft in the mid-late portion.

I thought we were talking concepts here, not specifics. Conceptually I'd agree with you that especially in baseball, it can't just be about salaries paid to the 25-man roster.

DumpJerry
12-31-2008, 09:25 AM
The point is whether in a system where he can make a profit and win or make a profit and tread water - why would he not try to win?
:dollarbill:
It's too complicated to get into an explanation.

Thome25
12-31-2008, 09:32 AM
To put it in simple terms: It's almost like the rest of MLB are the AAAA teams for the Yankees, Red Sawx, Angels, and anyone else who routinely breaks the bank and signs other teams players all the time. It's like these teams are an extension of the minor leagues for the fat cats.

It's as if teams scout, draft, sign, and develop the players only to have them taken away by the teams that have far more money than they could ever dream of. It's like the White Sox calling up a handful of players from the Knights. They make a call and say "I'll take him, him, and him."

The same thing goes for the Yanks and Red Sawx etc. Except in addition to the Pawtucket Red Sox and Columbus Yankees they also have their AAAA minor league teams they just pluck players from in the Brewers, Blue Jays, Marlins, etc. They look at these teams players the same way they do their AAA clubs and say "I'll take him, him, and him"

It's a broken system that isn't good for the game or the fans.

russ99
12-31-2008, 11:03 AM
To put it in simple terms: It's almost like the rest of MLB are the AAAA teams for the Yankees, Red Sawx, Angels, and anyone else who routinely breaks the bank and signs other teams players all the time. It's like these teams are an extension of the minor leagues for the fat cats.

It's as if teams scout, draft, sign, and develop the players only to have them taken away by the teams that have far more money than they could ever dream of. It's like the White Sox calling up a handful of players from the Knights. They make a call and say "I'll take him, him, and him."

The same thing goes for the Yanks and Red Sawx etc. Except in addition to the Pawtucket Red Sox and Columbus Yankees they also have their AAAA minor league teams they just pluck players from in the Brewers, Blue Jays, Marlins, etc. They look at these teams players the same way they do their AAA clubs and say "I'll take him, him, and him"

It's a broken system that isn't good for the game or the fans.

Quite true. But it's very good for the players and unless their union is broken, we won't see a cap.

DumpJerry
12-31-2008, 12:08 PM
To put it in simple terms: It's almost like the rest of MLB are the AAAA teams for the Yankees, Red Sawx, Angels, and anyone else who routinely breaks the bank and signs other teams players all the time. It's like these teams are an extension of the minor leagues for the fat cats.

It's as if teams scout, draft, sign, and develop the players only to have them taken away by the teams that have far more money than they could ever dream of. It's like the White Sox calling up a handful of players from the Knights. They make a call and say "I'll take him, him, and him."

The same thing goes for the Yanks and Red Sawx etc. Except in addition to the Pawtucket Red Sox and Columbus Yankees they also have their AAAA minor league teams they just pluck players from in the Brewers, Blue Jays, Marlins, etc. They look at these teams players the same way they do their AAA clubs and say "I'll take him, him, and him"

It's a broken system that isn't good for the game or the fans.
I'm glad to see nobody has been exaggerating around here at all........

Daver
12-31-2008, 12:33 PM
Sure the cap and total revenue sharing (like football and basketball) is unrealistic, however the owners had their chance in 94 when should have held out longer in the last strike, the point of it was lost. Economic sanity needs to return to baseball. I would love to see a few teams have to declare bankruptcy (but not right now due to there are currently enough lost jobs). The haves are basically eliminating their competition before the season starts, sure every once in a while a team overcomes and makes the playoffs but they rarely if at all win. In the current state, money = a better chance at winning.

I have not read the whole thread but it sucks liking Pittsburgh or any other have not right now. Even if they do their scouting and produce great players they can't keep them cause the Yankees, Boston, ect....will just out bid for their services.

The owners were ordered by a judge to extend the previous CBA while a new one was negotiated and allow the players to return to work in 94, considering MLB's track record with labor cases in court they made the right move.

Daver
12-31-2008, 12:33 PM
Any workable floor would have to include some sense of player development costs, or you simply shift the game from "overpaying/signing the best FA" to "overpaying/signing the highest potential prospects". This is already happening where teams pass on players they would otherwise draft because of "signability" and larger payroll teams get guys who would otherwise go at the top of the draft in the mid-late portion.

I thought we were talking concepts here, not specifics. Conceptually I'd agree with you that especially in baseball, it can't just be about salaries paid to the 25-man roster.

The owners oppose a floor and the players oppose a cap, how do you plan to overcome these simple facts?

TDog
12-31-2008, 03:22 PM
Sure the cap and total revenue sharing (like football and basketball) is unrealistic, however the owners had their chance in 94 when should have held out longer in the last strike, the point of it was lost. Economic sanity needs to return to baseball. ...

No. What the owners should have done in 1994 was settle things so the season could have been played out. For them to hold out longer so that they could have a system in place to increase their profits is a ridiculous idea.

Your premise that economic sanity needs to return to baseball is flawed. There never was economic sanity in baseball. There have been degrees of economic insanity.

There are owners who are not interested in completing. There always have been. Connie Mack wrote that he could make more money with a fourth- or fifth-place team that would draw fans to the park because he didn't have to pay his players large contracts. His organization put together a couple of great teams, and each time he sold off the players for big dividends.

I'm sure the owners who value profits before winning would love to share in profits of other teams.

Oblong
12-31-2008, 05:42 PM
I'm not even sure there's economic insanity today. It's just 5 or 6 different ways to run a club among 30 club owners. At the end of the day it's their decisions.

Flight #24
01-01-2009, 11:05 AM
The owners oppose a floor and the players oppose a cap, how do you plan to overcome these simple facts?

:scratch:

The question that started this thread was "Do You Think MLB Needs A Salary Cap", not "Do You Think A Cap Will Be Implemented".

Parrothead
01-01-2009, 11:42 AM
No. What the owners should have done in 1994 was settle things so the season could have been played out. For them to hold out longer so that they could have a system in place to increase their profits is a ridiculous idea.

Your premise that economic sanity needs to return to baseball is flawed. There never was economic sanity in baseball. There have been degrees of economic insanity.

There are owners who are not interested in completing. There always have been. Connie Mack wrote that he could make more money with a fourth- or fifth-place team that would draw fans to the park because he didn't have to pay his players large contracts. His organization put together a couple of great teams, and each time he sold off the players for big dividends.

I'm sure the owners who value profits before winning would love to share in profits of other teams.


True that the 94 season should have played out and that there are some owners that value profits before winning. However, for me, the problem of a team developing guys and then losing them to Bos, NYY, NYM or the Braves really sucks. Montreal could have been a powerhouse but could not afford to out bid everyone else. I think everyone out there, except for the players and agents will agree that 10+ mil a year to play ball is insane. Some how there needs to be a plan where teams can keep guys. For me watching fire sales every blows as does watching about 20 teams in the begining of the year have no chance at competing with the big boys. As someone said before, money does not ensure winning but it sure helps. The system is broke and it needs to be fixed, if that means contraction, lets get it done.

Daver
01-01-2009, 01:45 PM
True that the 94 season should have played out and that there are some owners that value profits before winning. However, for me, the problem of a team developing guys and then losing them to Bos, NYY, NYM or the Braves really sucks. Montreal could have been a powerhouse but could not afford to out bid everyone else. I think everyone out there, except for the players and agents will agree that 10+ mil a year to play ball is insane. Some how there needs to be a plan where teams can keep guys. For me watching fire sales every blows as does watching about 20 teams in the begining of the year have no chance at competing with the big boys. As someone said before, money does not ensure winning but it sure helps. The system is broke and it needs to be fixed, if that means contraction, lets get it done.

Montreal was run into the ground by a single mans greed, and for no other reason.

Parrothead
01-02-2009, 01:31 PM
Montreal was run into the ground by a single mans greed, and for no other reason.

And cause nobody showed up to watch crap.

TDog
01-02-2009, 02:12 PM
And cause nobody showed up to watch crap.


A salary cap does nothing to guarantee that team won't field crappy teams. The Mets and Tigers are two franchises that have spent a lot of money putting crappy teams on the field, and the 2007 White Sox were paid more than the 2005 White Sox.

People here like to post about how it's great to "sell high" with baseball talent, how it would be a good idea to trade a player when he is at his highest value. And, in fact, the White Sox were better off with Gavin Floyd than Freddy Garcia, who they had been paying more. The Yankees have bought high on a few players, this year and in previous years. It doesn't guarantee they will win. It really doesn't matter what players are paid, although often players who haven't signed the big contracts have more to play for.

In the days of pre-amateur-draft Yankees dynasty, the team spent more money on player development and scouting and treated other teams like their farm system. Now it appears they are just doing the latter because the Yankees aren't developing the talent they used to.

DumpJerry
01-03-2009, 01:46 PM
On White Sox Weekly today, Darrin Jackson addressed the salary cap issue. He is not sure it would achieve the goal(s) its proponents say it will. He talked about how Bowie Kuhn stopped the As from dismantling their World Series championship team with a fire sale trade. Too bad Spineless Bud would not step in and tell a team that they are acting in a manner which is detrimental to baseball.

itsnotrequired
01-04-2009, 11:37 AM
On White Sox Weekly today, Darrin Jackson addressed the salary cap issue. He is not sure it would achieve the goal(s) its proponents say it will. He talked about how Bowie Kuhn stopped the As from dismantling their World Series championship team with a fire sale trade. Too bad Spineless Bud would not step in and tell a team that they are acting in a manner which is detrimental to baseball.

example?

TDog
01-04-2009, 05:24 PM
On White Sox Weekly today, Darrin Jackson addressed the salary cap issue. He is not sure it would achieve the goal(s) its proponents say it will. He talked about how Bowie Kuhn stopped the As from dismantling their World Series championship team with a fire sale trade. Too bad Spineless Bud would not step in and tell a team that they are acting in a manner which is detrimental to baseball.

Bowie Kuhn didn't stop trades per se. Charles Finley tried to sell players for cash, which is what Connie Mack did to dismantle his championship A's teams for profit. The once dominant Red Sox sold Babe Ruth, their best pitcher and best hitter.

Finley built the A's in the window when the amateur draft allowed the doormat A's to pick up great talent and the reserve clause allowed him to keep the players without paying them what other teams would, i.e. what the market would bear. With the reserve clause being struck down, Finley wasn't going to be able to keep the talent he developed and he attempted to sell them. Kuhn looked at it as Finley cashing out by agreeing to sell Joe Rudi, Rollie Fingers and Vida Blue to the Red Sox and Yankees. Finley argued that in the new economic climate of baseball, he needed money to buy players. Finley took Kuhn to court and lost, the court ruling that Kuhn had the authority to act in the best interests of baseball.

Rudi ended up being granted free agency. Blue and Fingers were traded in lopsided-against-the-A's deals. At least the Blue trade, I recall, included some cash. The Fingers trade included the current A's manager and the father of Nick Swisher, but if Finley wasn't cashing out (as a previous A's owner did a couple of times) the A's, and perhaps baseball, would have been better off if Finley had been allowed to sell Blue, Fingers and Rudi.

Oddly enough, the commissioner most remembered for acting in the best interests of baseball never blocked any Connie Mack player sales that I know of. He did, however, ban a player who won two games in the 1919 World Series and had nothing to do with the scandal, for unrelated reasons. Future commissioners didn't prevent the Kansas City A's from acting as a Yankees farm team.

The best interest of baseball is an ambiguous concept.

Daver
01-04-2009, 05:32 PM
Bowie Kuhn didn't stop trades per se. Charles Finley tried to sell players for cash, which is what Connie Mack did to dismantle his championship A's teams for profit. The once dominant Red Sox sold Babe Ruth, their best pitcher and best hitter.

Finley built the A's in the window when the amateur draft allowed the doormat A's to pick up great talent and the reserve clause allowed him to keep the players without paying them what other teams would, i.e. what the market would bear. With the reserve clause being struck down, Finley wasn't going to be able to keep the talent he developed and he attempted to sell them. Kuhn looked at it as Finley cashing out by agreeing to sell Joe Rudi, Rollie Fingers and Vida Blue to the Red Sox and Yankees. Finley argued that in the new economic climate of baseball, he needed money to buy players. Finley took Kuhn to court and lost, the court ruling that Kuhn had the authority to act in the best interests of baseball.

Rudi ended up being granted free agency. Blue and Fingers were traded in lopsided-against-the-A's deals. At least the Blue trade, I recall, included some cash. The Fingers trade included the current A's manager and the father of Nick Swisher, but if Finley wasn't cashing out (as a previous A's owner did a couple of times) the A's, and perhaps baseball, would have been better off if Finley had been allowed to sell Blue, Fingers and Rudi.

Oddly enough, the commissioner most remembered for acting in the best interests of baseball never blocked any Connie Mack player sales that I know of. He did, however, ban a player who won two games in the 1919 World Series and had nothing to do with the scandal, for unrelated reasons. Future commissioners didn't prevent the Kansas City A's from acting as a Yankees farm team.

The best interest of baseball is an ambiguous concept.

Charles Finley sold the A's shortly after he lost his lawsuit, he saw the writing on the wall about free agency and arbitration, and saw that arbitration would come back to hamstring the owners as opposed to helping them.

TDog
01-04-2009, 06:10 PM
Charles Finley sold the A's shortly after he lost his lawsuit, he saw the writing on the wall about free agency and arbitration, and saw that arbitration would come back to hamstring the owners as opposed to helping them.

Arbitration is what ended up costing the owners the most in those post-reserve-clause labor negotiations. Arbitration sounded like a good deal for the owners to prevent players from becoming free agents, but it ended up, inflating the cost of players who hadn't reached free agency.

It is interesting to note that the Yankees dynasty ended with the amateur draft and the A's dynasty ended iwth the fall of the reserve clause. Charlie Finley, like Bill Veeck, didn't have the money to compete in baseball era of free agency. Finley also had the disadvantage of being an owner nobody wanted to play for.

I have never understood why Bowie Kuhn believed Finley selling Vida Blue to the Yankees was not in the best interests of baseball, but Reggie Jackson signing with the Yankees as a free agent was OK.