PDA

View Full Version : Great article on Salary Cap


kermittheefrog
02-19-2002, 12:50 PM
Great article on the possibility of a salary cap and what effect it would have:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020219daily.html

RichH55
02-19-2002, 01:01 PM
With Salary Floors a certain amount of money is locked in....I agree with some of his points, but Sports doesn't work in a theoritical economic model(never really has besides basic points)...A salary cap with modifications could work IMO...you would still need revenue sharing, and a salary floor and i have no issue with Veteran mins(that only count as if they were rookie mins) or some sort of Franschise tag or Larry Bird exception....the alternative is essentially what we have now, and as an economic situation for a Sports League it is less than ideal(of course since Bud chooses to try arguments he cant win and some are flat-out untrue thats the hard thing to remember that things are not perfect)

kermittheefrog
02-19-2002, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
With Salary Floors a certain amount of money is locked in....I agree with some of his points, but Sports doesn't work in a theoritical economic model(never really has besides basic points)...A salary cap with modifications could work IMO...you would still need revenue sharing, and a salary floor and i have no issue with Veteran mins(that only count as if they were rookie mins) or some sort of Franschise tag or Larry Bird exception....the alternative is essentially what we have now, and as an economic situation for a Sports League it is less than ideal(of course since Bud chooses to try arguments he cant win and some are flat-out untrue thats the hard thing to remember that things are not perfect)

It depends on your definition of "work." Anything that would make trading a torn up the ass would really dissapoint me and that's what a salary cap would do. A salary cap is a pretty communist idea if you think about it. Instead of working within the parameters of your operating revenue you work within the parameters of a set amount of money makign everyone equal. That's pretty screwy if you ask me.

BTW - Why is the NBA cap exception called the Larry Bird exception anyway?

voodoochile
02-19-2002, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


It depends on your definition of "work." Anything that would make trading a torn up the ass would really dissapoint me and that's what a salary cap would do. A salary cap is a pretty communist idea if you think about it. Instead of working within the parameters of your operating revenue you work within the parameters of a set amount of money makign everyone equal. That's pretty screwy if you ask me.

BTW - Why is the NBA cap exception called the Larry Bird exception anyway?

They passed the rule so that the Celtics could exceed their available cap space to re-sign Larry Bird.

BTW, both the NBA and NFL have salary floors in place.

Paulwny
02-19-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
[B

BTW - Why is the NBA cap exception called the Larry Bird exception anyway? [/B]

I didn't know either, I found this:


LARRY BIRD EXCEPTION -- This is the best known one. Players who qualify for this exception are called "Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA. This exception allows teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents, up to the player's maximum salary. The free agent in question must have played for three seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. This means a player can obtain "Bird rights" by playing under three one-year contracts, a single contract of at least three years, or any combination. It also means that when a player is traded, his Bird rights are traded with him, and his new team can use the Bird exception to re-sign him. These contracts can be up to seven years in length. A player can receive 12.5% raises using this exception. This exception is known as the Larry Bird exception because the Celtics were the first team allowed to exceed the cap to keep their own free agent, and the player happened to be Bird.

EARLY BIRD EXCEPTION -- This is a weaker form of the Larry Bird exception. Players who qualify for this exception are called "Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA. A player qualifies for this exception after just two seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. Using this exception, a team may re-sign its own free agent for 175% of his salary the previous season or the average player salary, whichever is greater. Early Bird contracts must be for at least two seasons (which limits its usefulness -- it's often better to take a lower salary for one season and then have the full Bird exception available the next season) and no longer than six seasons. A player can receive 12.5% raises using this exception.

RichH55
02-19-2002, 01:18 PM
Trading would be an issue of course...in Football you basically cant while in Basketball you can trade your whole team....it would have salary cap implications(IE dont sign a guy to a horrible long term deal and then wonder why it hurts you), but im sure the trading would still be there

PaleHoseGeorge
02-19-2002, 01:23 PM
You're right, Kermie, it is a great article. The more you understand economic theory, the less support any thinking fan can give to the salary cap pleas of ownership.

My big problem with Sheehan's article is how he leaves the most important paragraph till the very end. To quote...

Recognize, though, that the only people who gain anything from a salary cap are those member owners. A salary cap doesn't benefit fans, it doesn't benefit the game as a whole, and it doesn't do anything for competitive balance. It reduces the financial incentives to improve and innovate and succeed. Moreover, the pursuit of a salary cap has caused the leadership of MLB to relentlessly trash its product in an attempt to reach the ultimate goal. The anti-marketing of baseball, which has done more actual damage to the game than any economic system ever could, has one goal: get a salary cap.

Anti-marketing. Couldn't have said it better myself. MLB trashes itself so the owners can make more money while assuming less risk. That's what Sheehan needed to say up-top. Had he done so, the rest of the column would follow with precise argument supporting the points noted above.

It's a common problem for writers. You do such a great job summarizing your arguments in conclusion, you've created a better introductory paragraph for the bottom of your essay than the one you created for the top.

kermittheefrog
02-19-2002, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
You're right, Kermie, it is a great article. The more you understand economic theory, the less support any thinking fan can give to the salary cap pleas of ownership.

My big problem with Sheehan's article is how he leaves the most important paragraph till the very end. To quote...

Recognize, though, that the only people who gain anything from a salary cap are those member owners. A salary cap doesn't benefit fans, it doesn't benefit the game as a whole, and it doesn't do anything for competitive balance. It reduces the financial incentives to improve and innovate and succeed. Moreover, the pursuit of a salary cap has caused the leadership of MLB to relentlessly trash its product in an attempt to reach the ultimate goal. The anti-marketing of baseball, which has done more actual damage to the game than any economic system ever could, has one goal: get a salary cap.

Anti-marketing. Couldn't have said it better myself. MLB trashes itself so the owners can make more money while assuming less risk. That's what Sheehan needed to say up-top. Had he done so, the rest of the column would follow with precise argument supporting the points noted above.

It's a common problem for writers. You do such a great job summarizing your arguments in conclusion, you've created a better introductory paragraph for the bottom of your essay than the one you created for the top.

That's one of the reasons I like the BP so much they ahve been trumpetting the idea that baseball is using anti-marketting for a while now and it's true. Instead of capitalizing on an exciting World Series all we've heard abotu all offseason is contraction and how pissed people are about it and how horrible baseball is. Why are the guys at the top of baseball so damn stupid?

RichH55
02-19-2002, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


That's one of the reasons I like the BP so much they ahve been trumpetting the idea that baseball is using anti-marketting for a while now and it's true. Instead of capitalizing on an exciting World Series all we've heard abotu all offseason is contraction and how pissed people are about it and how horrible baseball is. Why are the guys at the top of baseball so damn stupid?



The correct term is "demarketing" and thank you very much BA 202 test of this morning