PDA

View Full Version : Salary Cap


carusochop
02-07-2004, 06:15 PM
I used to be against the idea of a salary cap in baseball, mainly because I don't think the MLB should mimic the NFL. However it is ludicrous that one team (like the Yankees) can spend four times than what another team can (the Brewers). Yes the Yankees will pay a penalty, but they will still turn a profit. There needs to be some way to solve the competitive imbalance problem running through MLB. It would be fun to see who won if everyone was on the same playing field. Then everyone would know which team has the best GM, farm system, etc. On the other hand, we might not do so hot......

Daver
02-07-2004, 06:26 PM
Why do you think a salary cap would create an even playing field?

The only purpose a salary cap has is to guarantee the ownerships profit margin.

carusochop
02-07-2004, 06:34 PM
If each team had the same amount of money to work with, the Yankees couldn't sign the Sterling Hitchcock's of the word to oturagous contracts and just release them without a second thought. It would force teams to be more careful with the money they spend and everyteam would suffer the consequences of bad decisions. For instance the Pirates are stuck with Jason Kendall at over 10 million per year and it has hamstrung their payroll. That contract would have little effect on the Yankees.

gogosoxgogo
02-07-2004, 06:42 PM
I like the idea of a salary cap, but what I would like better is a stricter luxury tax where teams like the Yanks really get hit hard for going over a certain payroll number. The current system does nothing to stop them, just another minor expense.

mac9001
02-07-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Why do you think a salary cap would create an even playing field?

The only purpose a salary cap has is to guarantee the ownerships profit margin.

With a salary cap also comes a minimum cap. So if anything a salary cap would probably cut into the profit margin of owners that don't spend there their revenue sharing money.

Lip Man 1
02-07-2004, 08:36 PM
Sure let's lower the bar...why not?

"We can't compete with the Yankees...." (so why even try?)

Sounds like something out of the mouth of Jerry Reinsdorf.

There will be seven teams in MLB with payrolls over 100 million by the time the season begins and probably another three or four in the 90's. Sounds like they are trying to me.

If the White Sox, Brewers, Pirates, Padres, Reds etc can't compete let their owners sell the clubs to someone who can.

When was the last time Bud Selig got on the phone and asked Mark Cuban if he'd like to buy the Pirates? (Cuban's favorite team growing up). Even hear of guys like Bill Gates or Paul Allen? Think they might have some interest in owning a team?

In my opinion there are plenty of owners out there who'd enjoy owning a MLB team and could do a much better job then the Reinsdorf's, Glass', Linder's, McClatchey's, Pohland's etc. of the world.

Why won't those "poor team" owners sell? Great question...maybe it's because their city and state's have financed new stadiums for them, they can keep their payroll's down (sorry we can't afford it...) and collect a nice tidy profit every season.

Salary cap....please. Try getting owners who want to win first then if that doesn't work, I'll agree to your post.

Lip

Rex Hudler
02-07-2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Sure let's lower the bar...why not?

"We can't compete with the Yankees...." (so why even try?)

Sounds like something out of the mouth of Jerry Reinsdorf.

There will be seven teams in MLB with payrolls over 100 million by the time the season begins and probably another three or four in the 90's. Sounds like they are trying to me.

If the White Sox, Brewers, Pirates, Padres, Reds etc can't compete let their owners sell the clubs to someone who can.

When was the last time Bud Selig got on the phone and asked Mark Cuban if he'd like to buy the Pirates? (Cuban's favorite team growing up). Even hear of guys like Bill Gates or Paul Allen? Think they might have some interest in owning a team?

In my opinion there are plenty of owners out there who'd enjoy owning a MLB team and could do a much better job then the Reinsdorf's, Glass', Linder's, McClatchey's, Pohland's etc. of the world.

Why won't those "poor team" owners sell? Great question...maybe it's because their city and state's have financed new stadiums for them, they can keep their payroll's down (sorry we can't afford it...) and collect a nice tidy profit every season.

Salary cap....please. Try getting owners who want to win first then if that doesn't work, I'll agree to your post.

Lip

Great, I can't wait to see the players salaries when every team spends like the Yankees. Can the US Mint print money that fast without weakening the US dollar?

beckett21
02-07-2004, 10:30 PM
I know I am stating the obvious here, but the strongest labor union in the world will never allow a salary cap to happen. In contrast, the NFLPA is a sad, sorry joke. Those guys don't even have guaranteed contracts, and they have the potential to become a quadriplegic on virtually every play. Bunch of big dumb football players!

Baseball players are too smart for that.

Lip Man 1
02-07-2004, 11:01 PM
Rex says: "Great, I can't wait to see the players salaries when every team spends like the Yankees. Can the US Mint print money that fast without weakening the US dollar?

and why should that bother you Rex? Ever see the amount of money Tom Cruise makes for a single hit movie? or the Rolling Stones make for going on tour? or the top lawyers or doctors? How about CEO's like Michael Eisner who get a seven million dollar bonus while Disney is laying off people. (from 60 Minutes)

Free enterprise baby, this is America...you get what the market can afford to pay.

Is it morally right that athletes make more then teachers, policemen or firefighters? No...but the market says athletes right now are worth more then teachers. That's the way it is. When teachers, police and fire fighters start getting people to pay to see them work, I'm sure their salaries will go up as well.

Lip

StepsInSC
02-07-2004, 11:47 PM
Its just my stupid opinion but I think there's too much parity in the NFL...I can't explain it, I just don't like it.

npdempse
02-08-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Free enterprise baby, this is America...you get what the market can afford to pay.


Meh, yes & no--the inability of a player to go to FA status right away is far from "free enterprise". Without something to maintain some degree of parity, a free market kills baseball since you end up with behemoth teams that slaughter the midgets in 31-3 blowouts. Owners have recognized this since the formation of the first baseball association in the 1870s.

The argument about having a salary cap is just the argument against free agency warmed over--either way you reduce competition for players and salaries but enhance competitiveness. Without competitiveness, you don't have a product that anybody is interested in seeing. I personally think a pretty good balance has been struck with the advent of limited free agency--a relatively poor team can reap the benefits of a good scouting system, while mature players can reap some benefits of a "free" market. And occasionally you get a team like the Marlins, whose young players could help them to a WS title.

Rex Hudler
02-08-2004, 03:38 AM
Free enterprise baby, this is America...you get what the market can afford to pay.

Call it what you want, but that same free enterprise is what has tickets at higher prices than ever. If every team spent $120 million on payroll, ticket prices would double.

At some point, your free enterprise model crumbles when the consumer can no longer afford the product.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2004, 12:39 PM
Rex says: "At some point, your free enterprise model crumbles when the consumer can no longer afford the product."

I understand your point but when (if) that day comes the market will correct itself. When fans can't afford to go out and see games adjustments will be made...teams will go out of business, players won't have as many jobs, therefore they will lower their 'demands,' and prices will come down (Unless of course the owners would refuse to lower ticket prices, which would be suicide and show everyone what many fans already understand...that OWNERS are the cause and problem in baseball today.)

And remember if you can't go to the game, there's always the best seat in the house on TV or radio.

Hell there may also be another benefit of staying home....it may finally drive Uncle Jerry out of the game! How cas that be all bad!

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
02-08-2004, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Call it what you want, but that same free enterprise is what has tickets at higher prices than ever. If every team spent $120 million on payroll, ticket prices would double.

At some point, your free enterprise model crumbles when the consumer can no longer afford the product.

This is an interesting point, however I'm not sure you're interpretation is quite what you might expect. By showing that the price of attending an MLB baseball game keeps going up, the popularity of the sport has continued to increase (or at least has for nearly all of the past 30 years as the prices have gone up).

And here is the part that all the doom and gloomers always overlook when pronouncing baseball dead: as MLB prices go up, a whole a new market opens up in places like Kane County, Schaumburg, Joliet, and Crestwood for minor league baseball at value price points. Thus the overall market for baseball increases even further than "the good ol' days" when the only choices in town were the Sox and Cubs.

Baseball fans today have multiple choices at multiple price points and more convenient locations to attend games. The *sport* of baseball as entertainment has never been greater. Too bad the owners of MLB only see fit to keep knocking their own product.

:tool
"It's overpriced, overpaid, and uncompetitive."

:KW
"Yeah, so we're raising prices and cutting payroll."

:reinsy
"And it's all your fault... and the players' too, of course."

TornLabrum
02-08-2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
This is an interesting point, however I'm not sure you're interpretation is quite what you might expect. By showing that the price of attending an MLB baseball game keeps going up, the popularity of the sport has continued to increase (or at least has for nearly all of the past 30 years as the prices have gone up).

And here is the part that all the doom and gloomers always overlook when pronouncing baseball dead: as MLB prices go up, a whole a new market opens up in places like Kane County, Schaumburg, Joliet, and Crestwood for minor league baseball at value price points. Thus the overall market for baseball increases even further than "the good ol' days" when the only choices in town were the Sox and Cubs.

Baseball fans today have multiple choices at multiple price points and more convenient locations to attend games. The *sport* of baseball as entertainment has never been greater. Too bad the owners of MLB only see fit to keep knocking their own product.

:tool
"It's overpriced, overpaid, and uncompetitive."

:KW
"Yeah, so we're raising prices and cutting payroll."

:reinsy
"And it's all your fault... and the players' too, of course."

:hawk

"At least half the blame goes to Jay Mariotti, so I'm calling him out right now!"

MisterB
02-08-2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Free enterprise baby, this is America...you get what the market can afford to pay.

'Free enterprise' also means that making a profit is perfectly acceptible (even if your product is mediocre or the public is foolish enough to subsidize you without expecting repayment). As far as I know it cuts both ways.

Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
And here is the part that all the doom and gloomers always overlook when pronouncing baseball dead: as MLB prices go up, a whole a new market opens up in places like Kane County, Schaumburg, Joliet, and Crestwood for minor league baseball at value price points. Thus the overall market for baseball increases even further than "the good ol' days" when the only choices in town were the Sox and Cubs.

Baseball fans today have multiple choices at multiple price points and more convenient locations to attend games. The *sport* of baseball as entertainment has never been greater. Too bad the owners of MLB only see fit to keep knocking their own product.


The pertinent question is do these new choices actually create new baseball interest and revenue, or do they simply divert existing dollars from other places? If people decide to spend their baseball entertainment dollar on the Cougars instead of the White Sox (due to high ticket prices), that money/interest is simply being redirected. If people pay to see both the Sox and the Cougars, then that's a different story. Many economists now are figuring that it's not in a municipality's best interest to build new stadia for pro sports teams because they really don't create new revenue, they simply redirect it from other entertainment alternatives (namely ones that don't demand public funding). Increased interest in minor and independent league baseball may be good for the sport of baseball, but it doesn't help the major leagues if they are supplanting it instead of supplementing it.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-08-2004, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
The pertinent question is do these new choices actually create new baseball interest and revenue, or do they simply divert existing dollars from other places? If people decide to spend their baseball entertainment dollar on the Cougars instead of the White Sox (due to high ticket prices), that money/interest is simply being redirected. If people pay to see both the Sox and the Cougars, then that's a different story. Many economists now are figuring that it's not in a municipality's best interest to build new stadia for pro sports teams because they really don't create new revenue, they simply redirect it from other entertainment alternatives (namely ones that don't demand public funding). Increased interest in minor and independent league baseball may be good for the sport of baseball, but it doesn't help the major leagues if they are supplanting it instead of supplementing it.

Right now more people are spending more dollars to enjoy baseball entertainment--in person, on cable, and satellite "full ticket" packages-- than any other time in history. Period.

The revenue pie is growing, and as a baseball fan that makes me very happy. Whether Joliet, Kane County, or (gasp!) Jerry Reinsdorf is grabbing a larger or smaller share of that pie isn't my primary concern, only that the *sport* is alive and well.

In other words, Jerry Reinsdorf isn't owed jack.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2004, 09:21 PM
Mister B says: "'Free enterprise' also means that making a profit is perfectly acceptible

You are exactly correct. I have no problem with Jerry Reinsdorf making a profit. He's the owner, he took the financial risks when he helped buy the club, and is certainly entitled to one.

Where I draw the line is when that desire for 'profit' turns into 'greed' and a public trust that has existed for over 100 years in Chicago is now in danger of becomming irrelevant. In addition the taxpayers of the city and Chicago and state of Illinois are entitled to a return on their investement when they built a stadium for him.

A return of an investment to a sports franchise means one thing...winning.


lip

34rancher
02-09-2004, 07:22 AM
If anyone feels that baseball is the market of free enterprise, the get a clue. THe first thing that needs to happen for free enterprise is a free market. Baseball has a get out of jail free card with its antitrust exemption. So, please don't go wrapping up in "free enterprise"

Dadawg_77
02-09-2004, 06:12 PM
What baseball needs is revenue sharing amongest the parties. Teams and players split the revenue about at a 50/50 ratio. Then the teams split 100% of the revenue equally and each team would have to spend 45% of it on payroll for the major league roster. The 5% would go to draft picks and minor league systems. Maybe individual caps on salaries so no one player takes too big of a piece of the players pie.