PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Limit the amount of cash spent on a team?


Cuck_The_Fubs
11-26-2006, 07:41 PM
Do you guys think that their should be a cap to the amount of money spent on a team? Well, to be quite honest, I sure do. Lets take the Marlins-Yankees, for example. The Yanks spend well over $200 mil each year, whilst the 2006 Marlins had a team composed of $15 mil. How could a team like the marlins contend with a bunch of all-stars? A few factors to take into consideration:

1. Should their be a set standard of the amount of money regarding a proven veteran/rookie?

2. Should they file players into certain classes/levels concerning the amount of cash one receives?

3. How should they evaluate the amount of money a team can use in a given year?

4. etc....other opinions?

MrT27
11-26-2006, 08:12 PM
If you run your business well enough that your able to spend so much money I don't see why not. There is already a luxury tax in place which I think is enough.

Grzegorz
11-26-2006, 08:25 PM
Do you guys think that their should be a cap to the amount of money spent on a team?

The amount spent on a team? No; but how that revenue is generated by a specific franchise should be under the scrutiny of a board of directors.

To me, MLB is a business. Each team comprises a department of MLB. Each department should be kept in check by strong Commissioner.

I guess this makes me a baseball Hobbesian.

Daver
11-26-2006, 08:49 PM
The amount spent on a team? No; but how that revenue is generated by a specific franchise should be under the scrutiny of a board of directors.

To me, MLB is a business. Each team comprises a department of MLB. Each department should be kept in check by strong Commissioner.

I guess this makes me a baseball Hobbesian.

According to the Supreme Court, MLB does not engage in interstate commerce.

Grzegorz
11-26-2006, 09:14 PM
According to the Supreme Court, MLB does not engage in interstate commerce.

Correct, and MLB is not subject to federal antitrust statutes. Maybe my choice of the word "business" was poor because of the immediate connection to federal antitrust laws.

MLB, in my opinion, has the right and an obligation to create their own set of antitrust and business practice laws to protect current member franchises and consumers from illegal practices.

Ol' No. 2
11-26-2006, 11:10 PM
:deadhorse:

Lip Man 1
11-26-2006, 11:27 PM
Cuck:

Sure there should be a limit on spending...and I'll be right in the trenches with you on it as soon as a limit on owner's profits goes into place! (examples Kansas City, Milwaukee, Florida and the teams that reap huge revenue sharing welfare checks)

Lip

DumpJerry
11-26-2006, 11:33 PM
The 15 million dollar payroll Marlins made a serious playoff run this year.

FedEx227
11-26-2006, 11:34 PM
There should be no salary cap as long as as Lip said teams keep pissing away their revenue sharing money. You'd be surprised just how easily Kansas City could compete with a large market team financially. Until those teams start spending money, why help them out, they've had opportunities aplently.

DumpJerry
11-26-2006, 11:37 PM
I should also point out that the 200 million dollar payroll Yankees have has not won a World Series in several years.

FedEx227
11-26-2006, 11:48 PM
I should also point out that the 200 million dollar payroll Yankees have not won a World Series in several years.

Exactly. Big money has not equated to World Series titles lately, it's been sound, well-thought out moves.

Lip Man 1
11-27-2006, 01:14 PM
Dump:

The Yankees HAVE however made the postseason 11 consecutive years.

Yes... spending money does not GUARANTEE a World Series or a championship, but the numbers support the contention that spending money acquiring talent, sure does IMPROVE your chances to get to the post season.

To me there seems to be a correlation between teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Astros, Cardinals and so on seemingly making the playoffs every season, while teams like the Royals, Brewers, Pirates, Reds and so on seemingly never make it.

Lip

Mickster
11-27-2006, 01:24 PM
I would not oppose a cap so long as it is not a firm cap. Let teams go over and tax the heck out of them for doing so. With a salary cap should also go a salary floor thst is not set so arbitrarily low that the Marlins and Royals etc. wind up with revenue sharing profits while having a minimal payroll.

Fenway
11-27-2006, 01:24 PM
Dump:

The Yankees HAVE however made the postseason 11 consecutive years.

Yes... spending money does not GUARANTEE a World Series or a championship, but the numbers support the contention that spending money acquiring talent, sure does IMPROVE your chances to get to the post season.

To me there seems to be a correlation between teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Astros, Cardinals and so on seemingly making the playoffs every season, while teams like the Royals, Brewers, Pirates, Reds and so on seemingly never make it.



Theo Epstein made a very telling comment last year. The goal is to make the playoffs and then you have a 12.5% chance of winning it all.

Of course Boston overspends but being in the same division as the Yankees they are almost forced to. 2006 was a disaster for the Red Sox and although injuries hurt them many of us in New England question if Epstein knows what he is doing.

In some regards Boston is under a cap which is $148 M. Go higher than that and the luxury tax kicks in.

Flight #24
11-27-2006, 01:37 PM
Theo Epstein made a very telling comment last year. The goal is to make the playoffs and then you have a 12.5% chance of winning it all.



It is telling. It tells you that Theo is kind of a dumbass who apparently buys into the "the playoffs are all luck" crapola.

brewcrew/chisox
11-27-2006, 01:38 PM
I would not oppose a cap so long as it is not a firm cap. Let teams go over and tax the heck out of them for doing so. With a salary cap should also go a salary floor thst is not set so arbitrarily low that the Marlins and Royals etc. wind up with revenue sharing profits while having a minimal payroll.

This is what I say. If you are going to put a salary ceiling, there needs to be a salary floor, which makes teams like the Royals and Brewers accountable. The money from Revenue Sharing shouldn't be spent on trips to the Bahamas. It should be spent on improving the team. Thank god Selig is gone from the Brewers, as he only seemed to do the former, and at least Anastacio is willing to entertain the latter.

Ol' No. 2
11-27-2006, 01:39 PM
I would not oppose a cap so long as it is not a firm cap. Let teams go over and tax the heck out of them for doing so. With a salary cap should also go a salary floor thst is not set so arbitrarily low that the Marlins and Royals etc. wind up with revenue sharing profits while having a minimal payroll.This is what I've been arguing for a long time: A floor will do more to improve competitiveness than a cap. The floor should be at least the amount of revenue sharing + shared revenue a team receives.

The Wall
11-27-2006, 03:12 PM
This is what I've been arguing for a long time: A floor will do more to improve competitiveness than a cap. The floor should be at least the amount of revenue sharing + shared revenue a team receives.

Why should the floor be all that? That would drive up the cost of free agents which anyway is ridiculously high already. The salary cap should be determined by the players' themselves.

I think the floor should be:

number of players on roster * [(minimum salary+maximum salary)/2]

That would be a floor of 8.75 million for a 25 man roster of all league minimums of 350,000

For the NYY that floor would be 316.25 million!!

This would automatically solve the problem of stupid contracts. This would also move the league towards a performance based model wherein each player is paid on what he does and not on what he can/will/would/might do. Take the speculation out.

JohnTucker0814
11-27-2006, 03:36 PM
Maybe what baseball should do is re-align the divisions based on markets? The players are used to traveling all year, the east vs west is not a big deal, the schedule makers can still make a good travel schedule. Put the 5 biggets markets together to fight it out, put the middle 5 together to fight it out, put the lowest together to fight it out. Then you have 3 teams with 3 different markets and 1 wild card team!

Daver
11-27-2006, 05:32 PM
The only purpose a salary cap serves is to guarantee the owners profit margin.

Railsplitter
11-29-2006, 10:20 AM
If a team wants to blow $100 million or $200 million on overrated free agents and has-beens, let them.

Oblong
11-29-2006, 10:23 AM
salary caps protect the owners from their own stupity. I don't like them.

russ99
11-30-2006, 09:38 AM
Each department should be kept in check by strong Commissioner.

Wow, that's really funny! :tongue: We haven't had one of those in decades.

I vote for a cap, but also for a floor. It stinks that the Yankees spend 800 times more than the Royals, so if we really want to be fair, force the Royals of the league to spend to a certain level (60-70mil?). If they can't afford it, sell the team or move.

The cap/floor system seems to be working really well to ensure a competitive balance in the NHL. (except for the Hawks, of course :tongue: )