PDA

View Full Version : Salary cap for baseball


GASHWOUND
11-11-2001, 02:26 AM
I was thinking..If their was EVER a salary Cap for baseball. What # would that be?
Would you make it a 70 million dollar salarycap? A 50 million dollar one. Football seems to do a good job with the salary cap and look what it has done for the sport. You don't have a dynasty running around in fooball. Everybody from year to year has a chance. Hence the Bears.
But if their were ever to put a sal cap on baseball, what would everyone agree to.
I would say 65 would the highest I would go.
Lets spread the wealth around. The Spanks Triple A team is probably worth more than the Expos. Now that is what I call a bad thing.

FarWestChicago
11-11-2001, 02:35 AM
I would prefer a cap more like the NBA. You should have a chance to hold on to the players you develop. The football cap is ruthless.

WinningUgly!
11-11-2001, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I would prefer a cap more like the NBA. You should have a chance to hold on to the players you develop. The football cap is ruthless.

I agree that an NBA-type cap would be best. The NFL's cap just ends up forcing teams to turn veteran players away. When somebody like Jerry Rice has to finish his career with another team for salary cap reasons, there's something wrong with the system. If MLB ever goes to a salary cap, (which will probably never happen) they should allow teams to go over the cap in order to resign their own players. I love when guys retire from the team they spent their entire career with. Gwynn, Ripken & Puckett...how far back do you have to go to name another? Lou Whitaker? Robin Yount?

GASHWOUND
11-11-2001, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I would prefer a cap more like the NBA. You should have a chance to hold on to the players you develop. The football cap is ruthless.

You're right, the NBA cap has changed over the years to allow that. They have extended the years rookies have to stay with the team they drafted. It was 3 now its 5. But their is something about the football cap that interests me. All the Football teams are just about even in talent. From year to year teams have a chance to win it all. How is that? B-ball, you still have overwhelming favs to win. lakers..Lakers, and Lakers.
Idon't know all the "inner workings" of how the football sal cap works, but you can't defend the success it has had.
Maybe baseball needs to add 1 part football and one part basketball to create the perfect sal cap for baseball. That would work.

FarWestChicago
11-11-2001, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by GASHWOUND


You're right, the NBA cap has changed over the years to allow that. They have extended the years rookies have to stay with the team they drafted. It was 3 now its 5. But their is something about the football cap that interests me. All the Football teams are just about even in talent. From year to year teams have a chance to win it all. How is that? B-ball, you still have overwhelming favs to win. lakers..Lakers, and Lakers.Well, the Fakers didn't win crap until they got Phil. And, it's a little easier to build a dynasty when you can almost get there with just two players. The NBA system may work more the way you want in baseball. Football is just insane. It's almost like college where you can only have a player for 4 years max. :)

GASHWOUND
11-11-2001, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


I agree that an NBA-type cap would be best. The NFL's cap just ends up forcing teams to turn veteran players away. When somebody like Jerry Rice has to finish his career with another team for salary cap reasons, there's something wrong with the system. If MLB ever goes to a salary cap, (which will probably never happen) they should allow teams to go over the cap in order to resign their own players. I love when guys retire from the team they spent their entire career with. Gwynn, Ripken & Puckett...how far back do you have to go to name another? Lou Whitaker? Robin Yount?

Just like the NBA. I guess that would be alright. But teams will still find a way around that. with sigh and trades. Portland had a 90 million dollar payroll last year, which didn't help them but still its alot more than the Hawks payroll. But just like I said before, put all the good stuff from each sal cap into baseball to make the best sal cap possible.
Of course, this will never happen. The players association will never go for a Sal Cap. Don't be surprised in 10 years when we have the first player to sign a 300 million dollar contract. Hey, it could happen.

WinningUgly!
11-11-2001, 03:33 AM
I think the worst part about the NFL cap, is how the teams that reach the championship level, are unable to maintain it for more than a few years. Teams like Dallas & San Fran had to spend so much on just their core guys, that they end up not being able to re-sign any young guys that they develope along they way. It's not only teams that win it all, look at Jacksonville & Carolina! Only a few years ago both teams were a game away from the Superbowl. Now they are two of the saddest teams in the league, mainly because they had their hands tied with the cap. Maybe the NFL's parody is a good thing, & even though I personally hate the Cowboys & 49ers, I disagree with teams being forced into bottoming out. I hope baseball never makes that mistake. They've made enough already.

kermittheefrog
11-11-2001, 04:01 AM
I hate the idea of a salaray cap. Instead of balancing the competition what salary caps really do is take risk out of ownership. It says to the guy who isn't gonna pay 25 mil to Arod that he doesn't have to worry about anyone else doing it either. I think that's the wrong message to send. Owners need to be competitive with eachother. The A's have proved that you don't have to have a huge payroll to win.

I'm not saying baseball's economic system is perfect, it's not. Revnue sharing needs to happen. I think visitting teams should get a percentage of the gate and television monies for games. Sure George wouldn't like giving some of his TV money to the Royals but if there were no Royals there would be no money for that day, so that would just be something the big money owners would have to deal with.

One big problem with baseball is money spent on mediocre "talent". It's something that has to be fixed by intelligence rather than rules though. The Royals are going to spend something like 14 million on Neifi Perez, Brent Mayne and Roberto Hernandez. A below average shortstop, below average catcher and below average closer. Wouldn't you agree it would be more effective to spend that 14 mil on keeping Jermaine Dye or keeping Mike Sweeney or bringing in another star rather than those 3 below average players? It's easier to find guys about as good as Mayne or Perez or Hernandez cheap than to find another Dye or Sweeney.

FarWestChicago
11-11-2001, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
One big problem with baseball is money spent on mediocre "talent". It's something that has to be fixed by intelligence rather than rules though.When has "intelligence" ever been associated with baseball's owners? Most of these guys are obviously good at something. They made a lot of money somewhere along the line. But, they are, for the most part, complete idiots when it comes to running sports franchises.

kermittheefrog
11-11-2001, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
When has "intelligence" ever been associated with baseball's owners? Most of these guys are obviously good at something. They made a lot of money somewhere along the line. But, they are, for the most part, complete idiots when it comes to running sports franchises.

It starts with the owners but it comes down to the GMs. It's the GMs job to know better than to give big money to Derek Bell. Cam Bonifay got fired for that but it didn't stop Allard Baird from exercising an option on Roberto and extending Brent Mayne's contract.

FarWestChicago
11-11-2001, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


It starts with the owners but it comes down to the GMs. It's the GMs job to know better than to give big money to Derek Bell. Cam Bonifay got fired for that but it didn't stop Allard Baird from exercising an option on Roberto and extending Brent Mayne's contract. The owners, or their lackeys, hire the GM's. They are responsible. If I inherit an employee that sucks, it's my job get rid of him. If I hire one, it's my fault. A good person at the top will have an effective organization. A bad person won't. That's the way things work.

kermittheefrog
11-11-2001, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
The owners, or their lackeys, hire the GM's. They are responsible. If I inherit an employee that sucks, it's my job get rid of him. If I hire one, it's my fault. A good person at the top will have an effective organization. A bad person won't. That's the way things work.

True I just feel like anyone who thinks Derek Bell desires a multimillion dollar contract shouldn't be in position to be a candidate for a GM job in the first place. It's hard to fault the owners sometimes though. They come in knowing nothing about baseball, and then "baseball men" like Tim McCarver say you should hire my buddy, he'd be a great GM. Then the moron screws up.

It's not easy for a guy who doesn't know what he's doing to find advisors who know what their doing to point out a GM who knows what he's doing. As we can all see the system breaks down. Sometimes steps are taken to fix things. Pittsburgh fired Bonifay and hired David Littlefied who worked under a good GM, Dave Dombrowski. On the other hand David Glass sticks with Allard Baird. Baird sticks with Tony Muser and hires a pitching coach from Texas' organization of all places. Isn't that the last place you go for a pitching coach right now? Note: I'm not saying Littlefield wil be a good GM or a bad GM, I don't know a damn thing about him other than he came from someone good.

Daver
11-11-2001, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I would prefer a cap more like the NBA. You should have a chance to hold on to the players you develop. The football cap is ruthless.

In order to have any kind of salary cap the owners have to be in a position to make the players accept it,which they are not,they have lost in every kind of contract negotioations for the last 20 years.It is almost to the point that the only way to get a cap in baseball would be for the owners to break the players union,and if you think Bud "the spineless wonder" Selig is capable of doing that I have some beachfront property in Kansas to sell you.

But then again what the hell do I know?

FarWestChicago
11-11-2001, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by daver


In order to have any kind of salary cap the owners have to be in a position to make the players accept it,which they are not,they have lost in every kind of contract negotioations for the last 20 years.It is almost to the point that the only way to get a cap in baseball would be for the owners to break the players union,and if you think Bud "the spineless wonder" Selig is capable of doing that I have some beachfront property in Kansas to sell you.

But then again what the hell do I know? LOL! We were just having a hypothetical discussion in the middle of the night. I don't actually expect the owners to do anything right. Why would they start now?

czalgosz
11-11-2001, 12:08 PM
three things have worked to drive salaries up over the past 20 years -

1. Salary Arbitration. The players union had to be laughing all the way to the bank when they made that "concession". and when the discussion in salary arbitration has to be about on-field performance, that means that every shortstop in baseball will compare his salary to Alex Rodriguez. So mediocre players will earn big paychecks - "hey, I have 1/4 the playing ability of Alex Rodriguez, so I deserve $6 Mill a year!!!"

2. GM stupidity. GMs might be good at recognizing talent, but they are awful (as a rule) at the negotiating table. Most often, they are ex-ballplayers or scouts, going up against agents who were once corporate attorneys. Hmmm...

3. George Steinbrenner. By himself, this man has done more to ruin the sport of baseball than anyone. In some ways, I admire him (Hell, if I was a multibillionaire, and I owned the Sox, I'd make damn sure they never lost, either) but I honestly feel that if the Yankees won 10 straight championships and then the league folded in year 11 because of lack of interest, George would be happy, because he'd have 10 more championship rings. So, because George is willing to pay whatever it takes to win, and he's got the resources to do it, the other teams have to either take huge losses trying to keep up, or else pretty much give up on winning altogether.

I think I posted it on the old WSI, but I'll post it again. You don't need a salary cap, you need a luxury tax with some bite. Set a ceiling of say, $60,000,000. You'll also need to set a floor of say $30,000,000, to keep the jerks like Pohlad from running out a team of minor-leaguers and then crying poor. Then, for every dollar a team spends over that $60,000,000, you make them match it with a dollar to the general fund. So, if George Steinbrenner wants a $100,000,000 payroll, that's fine, but he'd have to pay an extra $40,000,000 to the other ballclubs, giving him in essence a $140,000,000 payroll.

Now the teams that can draw from that fund - teams that get "bang for the buck" - teams that get the most wins per dollar spent. So, if the A's win 100 games on a $40,000,000 payroll, they'd be paying $400,000 per win. If the D-Rays win 65 games on a $30,000,000 payroll, they'd be paying 460,000 per win. so the A's and not the Devil Rays would get a higher kickback from the general fund.

I don't mean to sound simplistic here, but I do think that this would go a long way towards solving the disparity problem. The unions would be happy because there's nothing that stops any one player from getting a big payday. The clubs who are blessed enough to be in big markets, or who have owners who don't care about losing money, wouldn't be able to run roughshod over the league, and teams who run their teams with intelligence would be rewarded for doing so.

I know it will never happen, but that's what I'd do...

Daver
11-11-2001, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
three things have worked to drive salaries up over the past 20 years -

1. Salary Arbitration. The players union had to be laughing all the way to the bank when they made that "concession". and when the discussion in salary arbitration has to be about on-field performance, that means that every shortstop in baseball will compare his salary to Alex Rodriguez. So mediocre players will earn big paychecks - "hey, I have 1/4 the playing ability of Alex Rodriguez, so I deserve $6 Mill a year!!!"

2. GM stupidity. GMs might be good at recognizing talent, but they are awful (as a rule) at the negotiating table. Most often, they are ex-ballplayers or scouts, going up against agents who were once corporate attorneys. Hmmm...

3. George Steinbrenner. By himself, this man has done more to ruin the sport of baseball than anyone. In some ways, I admire him (Hell, if I was a multibillionaire, and I owned the Sox, I'd make damn sure they never lost, either) but I honestly feel that if the Yankees won 10 straight championships and then the league folded in year 11 because of lack of interest, George would be happy, because he'd have 10 more championship rings. So, because George is willing to pay whatever it takes to win, and he's got the resources to do it, the other teams have to either take huge losses trying to keep up, or else pretty much give up on winning altogether.

I think I posted it on the old WSI, but I'll post it again. You don't need a salary cap, you need a luxury tax with some bite. Set a ceiling of say, $60,000,000. You'll also need to set a floor of say $30,000,000, to keep the jerks like Pohlad from running out a team of minor-leaguers and then crying poor. Then, for every dollar a team spends over that $60,000,000, you make them match it with a dollar to the general fund. So, if George Steinbrenner wants a $100,000,000 payroll, that's fine, but he'd have to pay an extra $40,000,000 to the other ballclubs, giving him in essence a $140,000,000 payroll.

Now the teams that can draw from that fund - teams that get "bang for the buck" - teams that get the most wins per dollar spent. So, if the A's win 100 games on a $40,000,000 payroll, they'd be paying $400,000 per win. If the D-Rays win 65 games on a $30,000,000 payroll, they'd be paying 460,000 per win. so the A's and not the Devil Rays would get a higher kickback from the general fund.

I don't mean to sound simplistic here, but I do think that this would go a long way towards solving the disparity problem. The unions would be happy because there's nothing that stops any one player from getting a big payday. The clubs who are blessed enough to be in big markets, or who have owners who don't care about losing money, wouldn't be able to run roughshod over the league, and teams who run their teams with intelligence would be rewarded for doing so.

I know it will never happen, but that's what I'd do...

What you are asking for there is that the owners basicaly police themselves,which is impossible with the way the league is run right now.
In order for that scenario to work you would have to replace Bud "the spineless wonder"with a commisioner that has the best interest of the game as his #1 priority,Bud is just a puppet that acts as the mouthpiece for the rest of the owners.

What Baseball really needs is a strong commisioner that can take charge and set both sides straight.