PDA

View Full Version : Does MLB need a Salary Cap?


HawkeyeFan
08-23-2006, 06:55 AM
This brings me to discussion because of two articles I read. Its pathetic how allt hese big market teams like Yankees, mets and what not have $120mil payrolls and a little market team has only 60 - 80 mil payrolls. Thats completely unfair to the small market team. So I'm wondering do you think that the MLB needs a cap?

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 07:12 AM
I think there should be some sort of cap, but I also think there should be some sort of exception for home grown players. Meaning make it so teams can't spend tons and tons on Free Agents and trades, but allow them to sign their own players for big contracts if they have the money to do so.

Canadian_kid16
08-23-2006, 07:19 AM
I think there should be some sort of cap, but I also think there should be some sort of exception for home grown players. Meaning make it so teams can't spend tons and tons on Free Agents and trades, but allow them to sign their own players for big contracts if they have the money to do so.


yeah I agree on that, the cap shouldn't be like the NFl where if you go over, your in big trouble, but they should have some kind of restrictions

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 07:22 AM
I think there should be some sort of cap, but I also think there should be some sort of exception for home grown players. Meaning make it so teams can't spend tons and tons on Free Agents and trades, but allow them to sign their own players for big contracts if they have the money to do so.


yeah I agree on that, the cap shouldn't be like the NFl where if you go over, your in big trouble, but they should have some kind of restrictions

In baseball it is such a long process to develop players, unlike football, that I feel you should be allowed to resign your own players without a cap hit if one was to be put in place. Like the Yankees shouldn't be penalized to resign the Derek Jeter's and Mariano Rivera's of the world but should be held accountable under a cap for big signings like Damon and Arod.

HawkeyeFan
08-23-2006, 07:29 AM
I think there should be some sort of cap, but I also think there should be some sort of exception for home grown players. Meaning make it so teams can't spend tons and tons on Free Agents and trades, but allow them to sign their own players for big contracts if they have the money to do so.
Yea, I can agree with that. I never thought of that idea, thats what I'd do.

MaxV
08-23-2006, 07:37 AM
I think there should be some sort of cap, but I also think there should be some sort of exception for home grown players. Meaning make it so teams can't spend tons and tons on Free Agents and trades, but allow them to sign their own players for big contracts if they have the money to do so.

Well, that idea is interesting, but I doubt it would do much in the way of decreasing the HUGE gap that exists between the big market clubs and the small market clubs.

Small market teams would still need to let their top young players go when they hit FA.

MaxV
08-23-2006, 07:42 AM
I don't think it's possible to have a similar situation in MLB as they have in NFL.

The reason for that is the gap between small market teams and big market teams is MUCH smaller.

For example, my favorite team, the Colts is one of the smallest and least profit-making team in the NFL and they still have no problems giving out 100 million worth of salary.

Can the Royals do that?

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 07:46 AM
It is because in football most teams can at least come somewhat close to selling out 16 games and generate money. In baseball there are 81 home games. Some teams can sell out a majority of those easily while other will struggle to fill the stadium with half for all those games.

drowe
08-23-2006, 08:13 AM
baseball absolutely needs a salary cap. but i do agree with what was said about players from your farm system being easier to retain. i'd like that. that would also make for less free agents, because the original team would, in theory, be able to pay more to keep a dude.

sweetness34
08-23-2006, 08:24 AM
baseball absolutely needs a salary cap. but i do agree with what was said about players from your farm system being easier to retain. i'd like that. that would also make for less free agents, because the original team would, in theory, be able to pay more to keep a dude.

Yea I like that idea as well. But I really getting sick and tired of seeing those damn Yankees trying to buy the World Series. A-Rod, Giambi, Abreu, Randy Johnson, Mussina, Matsui, Sheffield, etc...

These small market teams such as Tampa Bay, Kansas City, etc can't keep up. There definitely needs to be an F/A salary cap in baseball, but I do like the idea of an extension for the franchise salary cap where you have a lot more flexibility to sign "your own players" that you drafted and brought up.

Belish
08-23-2006, 08:24 AM
I don't think it's possible to have a similar situation in MLB as they have in NFL.

The reason for that is the gap between small market teams and big market teams is MUCH smaller.

For example, my favorite team, the Colts is one of the smallest and least profit-making team in the NFL and they still have no problems giving out 100 million worth of salary.

Can the Royals do that?

The NFL teams get a few billions dollars split amongst them from TV revenue, so for some teams, anything that they get from games is pure profit. The TV revenue pays each team 87.5 million dollars, which is already almost 90% of the salary cap. Some teams that are way under the cap are already in the black a few million dollars when the season starts.

I think there should be some sort of cap, but I also think there should be some sort of exception for home grown players. Meaning make it so teams can't spend tons and tons on Free Agents and trades, but allow them to sign their own players for big contracts if they have the money to do so.

There's no way the MLB player's union would allow that. As someone mentioned, small market teams would be forced to let go of their star players at some point, and if every other team is too close to the cap to sign him, there's a star player out of work. Also, too many middle-of-the-road / journeyman guys would end up out of work in favour of young guys coming up in a team's system.

MaxV
08-23-2006, 08:38 AM
Belish, that's exactly what I mean.

There really are no small market teams in the NFL. Every team has PLENTY to spend.

Check out this difference:

KC: Royals are broke, Chiefs have plenty.
Pitt: Pirates are broke, Steelers have more then enough.

I can go on and on. Every small market city that has a NFL and MLB franchises has this case.

NFL is just SO MUCH more balanced.

Among the 3 major sports in USA:

NFL is VERY balanced
NBA is fairly balanced but to a lesser extend
MLB is EXTREMELY unbalanced

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 08:44 AM
The unbalance in baseball has to do with the nature of the game. Who is going to buy season tickets to the Royals for 20-30 bucks a ticket knowing they are going to be bad for the next 2-3 years. That is 81 games. However someone will buy season tickets to the Cheifs for 60-70 bucks a ticket knowing they could be bad for the next 2 years, just so they have their tickets for when they get good again. Also having season tickets in football means devoting one Sunday every other week to your team. In baseball it is a huge commitment.

MaxV
08-23-2006, 08:56 AM
The unbalance in baseball has to do with the nature of the game. Who is going to buy season tickets to the Royals for 20-30 bucks a ticket knowing they are going to be bad for the next 2-3 years. That is 81 games. However someone will buy season tickets to the Cheifs for 60-70 bucks a ticket knowing they could be bad for the next 2 years, just so they have their tickets for when they get good again. Also having season tickets in football means devoting one Sunday every other week to your team. In baseball it is a huge commitment.

Very good point about Football only being once a week commitment, helping it with demand.

You are right about winning contributing to this disparity, but it's not the only reason.

For example, the A's and the Twins have both been very successful lately but neither has turned into a big market team, and probably never will.

While in Football, the Lions and Cards have struggled for so long, yet they are doing very well financially, evidenced by Cards giving Edge a HUGE contract.

eazyb81
08-23-2006, 09:15 AM
We had an excellent thread on this about a year ago, too bad old threads always get deleted..... :evil:

In short, yes, there should probably be a salary cap, along with a salary floor.

However, more importantly, there should be 100% revenue sharing like in the NFL. Making the Yankees spend $150 mill instead of $200 mill doesn't help Pittsburgh, KC, Tampa, etc become competetive.

While we're at it, there should also be a true worldwide draft and MLB should allow teams to trade draft picks.

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 09:18 AM
We had an excellent thread on this about a year ago, too bad old threads always get deleted..... :evil:

In short, yes, there should probably be a salary cap, along with a salary floor.

However, more importantly, there should be 100% revenue sharing like in the NFL. Making the Yankees spend $150 mill instead of $200 mill doesn't help Pittsburgh, KC, Tampa, etc become competetive.

While we're at it, there should also be a true worldwide draft and MLB should allow teams to trade draft picks.

I think a lot of the problems has to do with some owners in the smaller markets. I think the Yankees shelled out 77 million dollars this past year to share with other teams. A lot of owners take that money and don't put it into their teams. I've said this before, It would be really easy for George to cut the Yankees payroll to 150 million and put that extra 50 million in his pocket. They would still have the highest payroll and he would be that much richer. But he doesn't do that because he wants to win and loves baseball. Not enough owners love the sport in my opinion. That is one thing I love about being a Giants and Yankee fan. Our owners are in the sports business. Their teams are their business. This isn't the case in most places.

eazyb81
08-23-2006, 09:22 AM
We had an excellent thread on this about a year ago, too bad old threads always get deleted..... :evil:

In short, yes, there should probably be a salary cap, along with a salary floor.

However, more importantly, there should be 100% revenue sharing like in the NFL. Making the Yankees spend $150 mill instead of $200 mill doesn't help Pittsburgh, KC, Tampa, etc become competetive.

While we're at it, there should also be a true worldwide draft and MLB should allow teams to trade draft picks.

I think a lot of the problems has to do with some owners in the smaller markets. I think the Yankees shelled out 77 million dollars this past year to share with other teams. A lot of owners take that money and don't put it into their teams. I've said this before, It would be really easy for George to cut the Yankees payroll to 150 million and put that extra 50 million in his pocket. They would still have the highest payroll and he would be that much richer. But he doesn't do that because he wants to win and loves baseball. Not enough owners love the sport in my opinion.

Just because they don't put it directly into MLB payroll doesn't mean they're not putting it into the team. If small-market teams were smart, they would pour the luxury tax money that they're getting into scouting, development, amateur draft, and signing international players.

Paying crappy players like Mark Redman, Gil Meche, and Jeremy Burnitz $6 mill a year instead of $4 mill is dumb and doesn't help small market teams in the long run.

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 09:25 AM
We had an excellent thread on this about a year ago, too bad old threads always get deleted..... :evil:

In short, yes, there should probably be a salary cap, along with a salary floor.

However, more importantly, there should be 100% revenue sharing like in the NFL. Making the Yankees spend $150 mill instead of $200 mill doesn't help Pittsburgh, KC, Tampa, etc become competetive.

While we're at it, there should also be a true worldwide draft and MLB should allow teams to trade draft picks.

I think a lot of the problems has to do with some owners in the smaller markets. I think the Yankees shelled out 77 million dollars this past year to share with other teams. A lot of owners take that money and don't put it into their teams. I've said this before, It would be really easy for George to cut the Yankees payroll to 150 million and put that extra 50 million in his pocket. They would still have the highest payroll and he would be that much richer. But he doesn't do that because he wants to win and loves baseball. Not enough owners love the sport in my opinion.

Just because they don't put it directly into MLB payroll doesn't mean they're not putting it into the team. If small-market teams were smart, they would pour the luxury tax money that they're getting into scouting, development, amateur draft, and signing international players.

Paying crappy players like Mark Redman, Gil Meche, and Jeremy Burnitz $6 mill a year instead of $4 mill is dumb and doesn't help small market teams in the long run.

First of all Gil Meche isn't crappy. :lol: And hopefully now that the Royals have new management, they will spend money more wisely.

eazyb81
08-23-2006, 09:30 AM
I just think it's ridiculous that some people believe that George Steinbrenner just likes to win more than other owners, and that's why he spends so much on his team. In reality, he receives an insane amount of money from YES Network and other outlets, while also having the luxury of being in the #1 media market in the country. This increased revenue allows him to spend crazy amounts of money on payroll while still making money on the team.

The owners in KC, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Tampa Bay can't spend even close to that much money on their team because they don't generate even 25% of what the Yankees do, so they would be hemoragging money every year, which is simply unrealistic.

Xiomera
08-23-2006, 09:32 AM
Yes, they should make the Salary Cap at $150 million.

No one could really complain here, and it would prevent the Yankees from buying up every quality free agent out there. No one needs a 200 million dollar payroll (especially if they can't win with it).

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 09:38 AM
I just think it's ridiculous that some people believe that George Steinbrenner just likes to win more than other owners, and that's why he spends so much on his team. In reality, he receives an insane amount of money from YES Network and other outlets, while also having the luxury of being in the #1 media market in the country. This increased revenue allows him to spend crazy amounts of money on payroll while still making money on the team.

The owners in KC, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Tampa Bay can't spend even close to that much money on their team because they don't generate even 25% of what the Yankees do, so they would be hemoragging money every year, which is simply unrealistic.

He definately cares more than most owners. He has more to do and is more interested in the every day going ons of his team more than most owners. I think that is pretty much undeniable. I hear what you are saying with the YES Network and #1 media market. But there is also another team in this town. Also the Yankees apparently didn't make money this year. They lost some.

eazyb81
08-23-2006, 09:43 AM
I just think it's ridiculous that some people believe that George Steinbrenner just likes to win more than other owners, and that's why he spends so much on his team. In reality, he receives an insane amount of money from YES Network and other outlets, while also having the luxury of being in the #1 media market in the country. This increased revenue allows him to spend crazy amounts of money on payroll while still making money on the team.

The owners in KC, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Tampa Bay can't spend even close to that much money on their team because they don't generate even 25% of what the Yankees do, so they would be hemoragging money every year, which is simply unrealistic.

He definately cares more than most owners. He has more to do and is more interested in the every day going ons of his team more than most owners. I think that is pretty much undeniable. I hear what you are saying with the YES Network and #1 media market. But there is also another team in this town. Also the Yankees apparently didn't make money this year. They lost some.

You're crazy if you think the Yankees lost money this year. MLB doesn't open their books, so you just have to go by what they say, which shouldn't count for anything. If they aren't willing to open their books, I think that would tell most people they are making gobs of money but don't want the general public to know.

In addition, I think you are a little out of touch if you really believe George Steinbrenner cares more about his team and winning than other owners. Just because he's constantly featured on Sportscenter because he's the owner of the most profitable team in American professional sports, does not mean that he cares more about his team than other owners. And how exactly is he "more interested" and "have more to do" than other owners?

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 09:53 AM
I just think it's ridiculous that some people believe that George Steinbrenner just likes to win more than other owners, and that's why he spends so much on his team. In reality, he receives an insane amount of money from YES Network and other outlets, while also having the luxury of being in the #1 media market in the country. This increased revenue allows him to spend crazy amounts of money on payroll while still making money on the team.

The owners in KC, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Tampa Bay can't spend even close to that much money on their team because they don't generate even 25% of what the Yankees do, so they would be hemoragging money every year, which is simply unrealistic.

He definately cares more than most owners. He has more to do and is more interested in the every day going ons of his team more than most owners. I think that is pretty much undeniable. I hear what you are saying with the YES Network and #1 media market. But there is also another team in this town. Also the Yankees apparently didn't make money this year. They lost some.

You're crazy if you think the Yankees lost money this year. MLB doesn't open their books, so you just have to go by what they say, which shouldn't count for anything. If they aren't willing to open their books, I think that would tell most people they are making gobs of money but don't want the general public to know.

In addition, I think you are a little out of touch if you really believe George Steinbrenner cares more about his team and winning than other owners. Just because he's constantly featured on Sportscenter because he's the owner of the most profitable team in American professional sports, does not mean that he cares more about his team than other owners. And how exactly is he "more interested" and "have more to do" than other owners?

Up until this year, he has had his hand in every move the Yankees made. He was acting almost as a second GM. He created a team of associates down in Tampa who basically sit around a table and discuss the team all offseason. Cashman was nothing more than a puppet for a while. What owner cares more about winning than Steinbrenner? I don't think you can name many. Steinbrenner = Yankees. Most people don't even know how he made all his money because he is so synomous with the Yanks. Most other owners get associated with their business first and their sports franchise second. I say most because there are some old school owners still around, especially in football.

The Unseen
08-23-2006, 10:07 AM
Yes. And Belish is right about Jughead's "Larry Bird rule", which I believe is what the suggestion most resembles, although not specifically.

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 10:10 AM
I agree my idea would be hard to imply, but in a perfect world I would like to see something similar. A hard cap will never work in baseball in my opinion so a funky twist along those lines will have be worked in if it ever was to go through.

MaxV
08-23-2006, 10:19 AM
I just think it's ridiculous that some people believe that George Steinbrenner just likes to win more than other owners, and that's why he spends so much on his team. In reality, he receives an insane amount of money from YES Network and other outlets, while also having the luxury of being in the #1 media market in the country. This increased revenue allows him to spend crazy amounts of money on payroll while still making money on the team.

The owners in KC, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Tampa Bay can't spend even close to that much money on their team because they don't generate even 25% of what the Yankees do, so they would be hemoragging money every year, which is simply unrealistic.

He definately cares more than most owners. He has more to do and is more interested in the every day going ons of his team more than most owners. I think that is pretty much undeniable. I hear what you are saying with the YES Network and #1 media market. But there is also another team in this town. Also the Yankees apparently didn't make money this year. They lost some.

You're crazy if you think the Yankees lost money this year. MLB doesn't open their books, so you just have to go by what they say, which shouldn't count for anything. If they aren't willing to open their books, I think that would tell most people they are making gobs of money but don't want the general public to know.

In addition, I think you are a little out of touch if you really believe George Steinbrenner cares more about his team and winning than other owners. Just because he's constantly featured on Sportscenter because he's the owner of the most profitable team in American professional sports, does not mean that he cares more about his team than other owners. And how exactly is he "more interested" and "have more to do" than other owners?

Up until this year, he has had his hand in every move the Yankees made. He was acting almost as a second GM. He created a team of associates down in Tampa who basically sit around a table and discuss the team all offseason. Cashman was nothing more than a puppet for a while. What owner cares more about winning than Steinbrenner? I don't think you can name many. Steinbrenner = Yankees. Most people don't even know how he made all his money because he is so synomous with the Yanks. Most other owners get associated with their business first and their sports franchise second. I say most because there are some old school owners still around, especially in football.

I'm sorry, but agree with eazyb81 on this argument. YOu can't just say that just because George spends more that he's the best and most caring owner. He spends more because he can afford to spend more.

George doesn't have to worry about spending 200 mill as he's sure to get more then enough profit in return. He doesn't do it out of the kindness of his heart. It's VERY profitable for him to have Yankees competing. Meaning the more he spends the more he gets back.

Small market owners don't spend more because they are cheap, they don't do it because they can't afford to.

If the Pirates were to be getting the same return as the Yankees, I'm pretty sure their owner would spend a lot of money on the team also.

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 10:24 AM
I just think it's ridiculous that some people believe that George Steinbrenner just likes to win more than other owners, and that's why he spends so much on his team. In reality, he receives an insane amount of money from YES Network and other outlets, while also having the luxury of being in the #1 media market in the country. This increased revenue allows him to spend crazy amounts of money on payroll while still making money on the team.

The owners in KC, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Tampa Bay can't spend even close to that much money on their team because they don't generate even 25% of what the Yankees do, so they would be hemoragging money every year, which is simply unrealistic.

He definately cares more than most owners. He has more to do and is more interested in the every day going ons of his team more than most owners. I think that is pretty much undeniable. I hear what you are saying with the YES Network and #1 media market. But there is also another team in this town. Also the Yankees apparently didn't make money this year. They lost some.

You're crazy if you think the Yankees lost money this year. MLB doesn't open their books, so you just have to go by what they say, which shouldn't count for anything. If they aren't willing to open their books, I think that would tell most people they are making gobs of money but don't want the general public to know.

In addition, I think you are a little out of touch if you really believe George Steinbrenner cares more about his team and winning than other owners. Just because he's constantly featured on Sportscenter because he's the owner of the most profitable team in American professional sports, does not mean that he cares more about his team than other owners. And how exactly is he "more interested" and "have more to do" than other owners?

Up until this year, he has had his hand in every move the Yankees made. He was acting almost as a second GM. He created a team of associates down in Tampa who basically sit around a table and discuss the team all offseason. Cashman was nothing more than a puppet for a while. What owner cares more about winning than Steinbrenner? I don't think you can name many. Steinbrenner = Yankees. Most people don't even know how he made all his money because he is so synomous with the Yanks. Most other owners get associated with their business first and their sports franchise second. I say most because there are some old school owners still around, especially in football.

I'm sorry, but agree with eazyb81 on this argument. YOu can't just say that just because George spends more that he's the best and most caring owner. He spends more because he can afford to spend more.

George doesn't have to worry about spending 200 mill as he's sure to get more then enough profit in return. He doesn't do it out of the kindness of his heart. It's VERY profitable for him to have Yankees competing. Meaning the more he spends the more he gets back.

Small market owners don't spend more because they are cheap, they don't do it because they can't afford to.

If the Pirates were to be getting the same return as the Yankees, I'm pretty sure their owner would spend a lot of money on the team also.

You missed the point though. Living in NY you should know in addition to spending more money on his team, you know he is involved in the day to day functions of his team, wheter that is a good or bad thing. More so than the Wilpons for a familiar comparison. I can't think of another baseball owner who is more involved in every aspect of the team than him. Maybe the owner of the Angels, I forgot his name.

Giantsfan1080
08-23-2006, 10:30 AM
Angels owner is Moreno.

MaxV
08-23-2006, 10:34 AM
You missed the point though. Living in NY you should know in addition to spending more money on his team, you know he is involved in the day to day functions of his team, wheter that is a good or bad thing. More so than the Wilpons for a familiar comparison. I can't think of another baseball owner who is more involved in every aspect of the team than him. Maybe the owner of the Angels, I forgot his name.

I’ve never said George doesn't care, off-course he does. My point was that it's not right to judge the owners commitment to the team simply by how much money they spend on it.

BTW, the fact that the Wilpons don't interfere is a blessing for the Mets. They know plenty about business but they don't know much when it comes to baseball operations.

They are committed to the Mets, if they weren't, they wouldn't open their checkbook as much. I just think they finally realized that Omar Manaya knows a lot more then them when it comes to baseball and they should just stay out of his way.

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 10:36 AM
You missed the point though. Living in NY you should know in addition to spending more money on his team, you know he is involved in the day to day functions of his team, wheter that is a good or bad thing. More so than the Wilpons for a familiar comparison. I can't think of another baseball owner who is more involved in every aspect of the team than him. Maybe the owner of the Angels, I forgot his name.

I’ve never said George doesn't care, off-course he does. My point was that it's not right to judge the owners commitment to the team simply by how much money they spend on it.

BTW, the fact that the Wilpons don't interfere is a blessing for the Mets. They know plenty about business but they don't know much when it comes to baseball operations.

They are committed to the Mets, if they weren't, they wouldn't open their checkbook as much. I just think they finally realized that Omar Manaya knows a lot more then them when it comes to baseball and they should just stay out of his way.

I will judge other owners commitment too their team. Because I really think that is a big problem in major league baseball compared to many other sports. You see it some in football but nearly as much.

eazyb81
08-23-2006, 10:38 AM
I just think it's ridiculous that some people believe that George Steinbrenner just likes to win more than other owners, and that's why he spends so much on his team. In reality, he receives an insane amount of money from YES Network and other outlets, while also having the luxury of being in the #1 media market in the country. This increased revenue allows him to spend crazy amounts of money on payroll while still making money on the team.

The owners in KC, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Tampa Bay can't spend even close to that much money on their team because they don't generate even 25% of what the Yankees do, so they would be hemoragging money every year, which is simply unrealistic.

He definately cares more than most owners. He has more to do and is more interested in the every day going ons of his team more than most owners. I think that is pretty much undeniable. I hear what you are saying with the YES Network and #1 media market. But there is also another team in this town. Also the Yankees apparently didn't make money this year. They lost some.

You're crazy if you think the Yankees lost money this year. MLB doesn't open their books, so you just have to go by what they say, which shouldn't count for anything. If they aren't willing to open their books, I think that would tell most people they are making gobs of money but don't want the general public to know.

In addition, I think you are a little out of touch if you really believe George Steinbrenner cares more about his team and winning than other owners. Just because he's constantly featured on Sportscenter because he's the owner of the most profitable team in American professional sports, does not mean that he cares more about his team than other owners. And how exactly is he "more interested" and "have more to do" than other owners?

Up until this year, he has had his hand in every move the Yankees made. He was acting almost as a second GM. He created a team of associates down in Tampa who basically sit around a table and discuss the team all offseason. Cashman was nothing more than a puppet for a while. What owner cares more about winning than Steinbrenner? I don't think you can name many. Steinbrenner = Yankees. Most people don't even know how he made all his money because he is so synomous with the Yanks. Most other owners get associated with their business first and their sports franchise second. I say most because there are some old school owners still around, especially in football.

Just being a control freak doesn't mean he "loves to win" and "loves baseball" more than other owners, which was your original point.

Most intelligent people hire other intelligent people and let them do their jobs.

slightlyaraiderfan
08-23-2006, 10:44 AM
Just as bad as those teams spending a lot, are the Marlins...with a whoping 14 million dollar payroll!(Dontrelle accounts for about 4 mil of that)

MaxV
08-23-2006, 10:50 AM
Just as bad as those teams spending a lot, are the Marlins...with a whoping 14 million dollar payroll!(Dontrelle accounts for about 4 mil of that)

It's that low? Can't be. That's less then what A-Rod makes before the All-Star game.

eazyb81
08-23-2006, 10:54 AM
Just as bad as those teams spending a lot, are the Marlins...with a whoping 14 million dollar payroll!(Dontrelle accounts for about 4 mil of that)

If anything, that shows that you don't need to waste money on expensive free agents to be competetive.

If you haven't noticed, the Marlins are doing very well this year and are currently competing for the wildcard.

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 10:55 AM
Just as bad as those teams spending a lot, are the Marlins...with a whoping 14 million dollar payroll!(Dontrelle accounts for about 4 mil of that)

If anything, that shows that you don't need to waste money on expensive free agents to be competetive.

If you haven't noticed, the Marlins are doing very well this year and are currently competing for the wildcard.

Than the small market teams should learn a lesson and give the Yanks their 77 million back if they can win with a 14 million payroll. :lol: Also remember, they are competitive in NL. They wouldn't be so competitive if they played in the AL Central like your Royals.

slightlyaraiderfan
08-23-2006, 11:01 AM
Just as bad as those teams spending a lot, are the Marlins...with a whoping 14 million dollar payroll!(Dontrelle accounts for about 4 mil of that)

If anything, that shows that you don't need to waste money on expensive free agents to be competetive.

If you haven't noticed, the Marlins are doing very well this year and are currently competing for the wildcard.
And they also traded away Dontrelle because he was too expensive, but decided to keep him for whenever they get the state of Florida to build their stadium for the Marlins. Plus, they better be competitive with all those prospects they trade for and the they play in a really weak division/leauge..

sweetness34
08-23-2006, 11:02 AM
Just as bad as those teams spending a lot, are the Marlins...with a whoping 14 million dollar payroll!(Dontrelle accounts for about 4 mil of that)

The Marlins are amazing, they win the WS back in what 1998, trade all their players away and start from scratch. Then, they win it again in 2003 and trade away all their players again. And look now, they're back in the Wild Card hunt. And if they win it again sometime soon, they'll trade away all their players again and rebuild. And yet storied franchises like the Chicago Cubs haven't won a championship for over 90 years.

And yet with all that payroll in NY, the Yankees aren't even the best team in the AL. Funny how things work...

Jughead10
08-23-2006, 11:06 AM
Just as bad as those teams spending a lot, are the Marlins...with a whoping 14 million dollar payroll!(Dontrelle accounts for about 4 mil of that)

The Marlins are amazing, they win the WS back in what 1998, trade all their players away and start from scratch. Then, they win it again in 2003 and trade away all their players again. And look now, they're back in the Wild Card hunt. And if they win it again sometime soon, they'll trade away all their players again and rebuild. And yet storied franchises like the Chicago Cubs haven't won a championship for over 90 years.

And yet with all that payroll in NY, the Yankees aren't even the best team in the AL. Funny how things work...

I know. They might be the best team in baseball right now.

thetedginnshow
08-23-2006, 11:58 AM
No, they don't. Instead, the three major U.S. sports should all not have salary caps.

P-L
08-23-2006, 01:25 PM
Yes and no. They do need one somehow, but no nothing will ever work. A pure cap would kill the Yankees. As much as I hate them it'd be unfair to single one team out. The only plausible way to make it work is make a cap and a floor that are only around 10-20 million off. But that would out all small and big market teams at a disadvantage while they adjust. Teams like the Braves, Cardinals, Tigers, and Blue Jays would all dominate the first few years after instituting a cap.

njx9
08-23-2006, 04:11 PM
a lot of guys have said similar, but baseball needs a cap, a floor (perhaps more important than the cap) and full revenue sharing. until they have those, the smaller teams will never have balance, and certain owners will never have incentive to do anything but pay AAA players to go out and lose.

yodabear
08-24-2006, 12:32 AM
Okay, I maybe by my lonsesome on this one, but NO!

The NBA, NHL, and NFL all have caps. Baseball is different in that sense. I mean isn't fun to see a team like the Tigers with a 40 to 50 million dollar budget try to beat the Yankees at 200 million? The Yankees haven't won the world series in what 6 years? So it isn't that important. Plus, with caps, u can't see a dominant team like the Yankees. See them struggle and everyone in New York jumping off the Empire State Building. U don't see that in any sport, so what? There may not be as much parody in baseball than in other sports. But lets look at the world sereis champs since 2001......D-Backs, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, and White Sox. Thats enough for me. I mean if lets say the Yankees won the WS 10 years in a row, maybe then I say differently, but right now, I say no.

MaxV
08-24-2006, 08:24 AM
Okay, I maybe by my lonsesome on this one, but NO!

The NBA, NHL, and NFL all have caps. Baseball is different in that sense. I mean isn't fun to see a team like the Tigers with a 40 to 50 million dollar budget try to beat the Yankees at 200 million? The Yankees haven't won the world series in what 6 years? So it isn't that important. Plus, with caps, u can't see a dominant team like the Yankees. See them struggle and everyone in New York jumping off the Empire State Building. U don't see that in any sport, so what? There may not be as much parody in baseball than in other sports. But lets look at the world sereis champs since 2001......D-Backs, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, and White Sox. Thats enough for me. I mean if lets say the Yankees won the WS 10 years in a row, maybe then I say differently, but right now, I say no.

Well among those 5 teams, only the Angels and Marlins had tiny payroll at the time they won, but I understand what you mean and agree with you.....to an extend.

Ever since the Yankees won their last WS, we've had more parity, but there's still a difference.

When was the last time the Royals or the Pirates competed? I'm not saying it's impossible for a small market team to compete, there is a way. It's called Farm System. That's the formula the A's have followed successfully. Twins have done a good job recently, as well as Tigers this year.

But it's still A LOT tougher to build a contender when you don't have a very flexible payroll.

yourfavestoner
08-24-2006, 03:08 PM
Baseball doesn't need a salary cap so much as it needs revenue sharing. Like other people have said, it would be pretty unfair to have a salary cap in baseball because player development takes so long. Instead, the owners need to pool a percentage of their revenues together and divide them evenly, so the small market guys have the means to compete. Baseball needs to finally come to the realization that you have to do what's best for the league, instead of what's best for each individual team.

MaxV
08-24-2006, 03:32 PM
Baseball doesn't need a salary cap so much as it needs revenue sharing. Like other people have said, it would be pretty unfair to have a salary cap in baseball because player development takes so long. Instead, the owners need to pool a percentage of their revenues together and divide them evenly, so the small market guys have the means to compete. Baseball needs to finally come to the realization that you have to do what's best for the league, instead of what's best for each individual team.

Well revenue sharing already exists in baseball....perhaps you mean it should be a bigger split?

eazyb81
08-25-2006, 10:13 AM
Baseball doesn't need a salary cap so much as it needs revenue sharing. Like other people have said, it would be pretty unfair to have a salary cap in baseball because player development takes so long. Instead, the owners need to pool a percentage of their revenues together and divide them evenly, so the small market guys have the means to compete. Baseball needs to finally come to the realization that you have to do what's best for the league, instead of what's best for each individual team.

Well revenue sharing already exists in baseball....perhaps you mean it should be a bigger split?

I'm sure he means additional revenue sharing, maybe even 100% revenue sharing like the NFL.

Belish
08-25-2006, 11:07 AM
Baseball doesn't need a salary cap so much as it needs revenue sharing. Like other people have said, it would be pretty unfair to have a salary cap in baseball because player development takes so long. Instead, the owners need to pool a percentage of their revenues together and divide them evenly, so the small market guys have the means to compete. Baseball needs to finally come to the realization that you have to do what's best for the league, instead of what's best for each individual team.

I'm guessing your talking about TV revenues, but the problem with that is that there's no way that Steinbrenner or Red Sox owner John Henry are going to give up their profits from the YES and NESN networks. Many of the larger market owners have their own stations to broadcast their games (Braves owner Ted Turner has TBS...Blue Jays owner Ted Rogers has Sportsnet...). Why would these guys give up profits from their own networks to help the Pirates and the Royals of this world?

The NFL revenue sharing works because their games are broadcasted on national networks, not team-owned networks, so they can sign a collective TV deal.

eazyb81
08-25-2006, 11:12 AM
Baseball doesn't need a salary cap so much as it needs revenue sharing. Like other people have said, it would be pretty unfair to have a salary cap in baseball because player development takes so long. Instead, the owners need to pool a percentage of their revenues together and divide them evenly, so the small market guys have the means to compete. Baseball needs to finally come to the realization that you have to do what's best for the league, instead of what's best for each individual team.

I'm guessing your talking about TV revenues, but the problem with that is that there's no way that Steinbrenner or Red Sox owner John Henry are going to give up their profits from the YES and NESN networks. Many of the larger market owners have their own stations to broadcast their games (Braves owner Ted Turner has TBS...Blue Jays owner Ted Rogers has Sportsnet...). Why would these guys give up profits from their own networks to help the Pirates and the Royals of this world?

The NFL revenue sharing works because their games are broadcasted on national networks, not team-owned networks, so they can sign a collective TV deal.

I don't think anyone is naive enough to think they will willingly hand over millions each year from their own network, but they are part of a league, and if the league votes for them to do so they really don't have a choice.

That is the main problem with MLB IMO, everyone views teams as individual corporations rather than members of a league.

MaxV
08-25-2006, 11:14 AM
Baseball doesn't need a salary cap so much as it needs revenue sharing. Like other people have said, it would be pretty unfair to have a salary cap in baseball because player development takes so long. Instead, the owners need to pool a percentage of their revenues together and divide them evenly, so the small market guys have the means to compete. Baseball needs to finally come to the realization that you have to do what's best for the league, instead of what's best for each individual team.

I'm guessing your talking about TV revenues, but the problem with that is that there's no way that Steinbrenner or Red Sox owner John Henry are going to give up their profits from the YES and NESN networks. Many of the larger market owners have their own stations to broadcast their games (Braves owner Ted Turner has TBS...Blue Jays owner Ted Rogers has Sportsnet...). Why would these guys give up profits from their own networks to help the Pirates and the Royals of this world?

The NFL revenue sharing works because their games are broadcasted on national networks, not team-owned networks, so they can sign a collective TV deal.

I thought Time Warner was the owner of the Bravos.

Anyway you forgot the Mets with their SNY.

Finsfan79
08-25-2006, 03:11 PM
yes
a cap and a minium
120 million cap
45-50 million minium

larry bird rule, revenue sharing, etc.

It would make the team much much better overall.

MaxV
08-25-2006, 03:14 PM
yes
a cap and a minium
120 million cap
45-50 million minium

larry bird rule, revenue sharing, etc.

It would make the team much much better overall.

That won't change much.

There is still a big difference between 120 mill and 50 mill.

Again, it all comes down to revenue sharing.

Cap is worthless if there isn't a good revenue sharing plan in place.

Finsfan79
08-25-2006, 03:18 PM
a 50 to 60 million dollar team can win it. It would bring the bottom up and remove the ceiling and bring a happy medium I think.

Agreed about the revenue sharing to be fixed to actually work and assist though.

MaxV
08-25-2006, 03:23 PM
a 50 to 60 million dollar team can win it. It would bring the bottom up and remove the ceiling and bring a happy medium I think.

Agreed about the revenue sharing to be fixed to actually work and assist though.

Yes, I know they could win it. Like I've said both Marlins and Angels won championships while having less then 1/3 of Yankees payroll. In the case of the Marlins it was more like 1/4.

I'm just saying, with 120 mill cap there would still be a BIG difference in payrolls.

Unless the revenue sharing increases substancially.

P-L
08-25-2006, 04:03 PM
yes
a cap and a minium
120 million cap
45-50 million minium

larry bird rule, revenue sharing, etc.

It would make the team much much better overall.

That won't change much.

There is still a big difference between 120 mill and 50 mill.

Again, it all comes down to revenue sharing.

Cap is worthless if there isn't a good revenue sharing plan in place.

Yes and 45-50 million is a very low floor. Only 5 teams have payrolls less than 50 and only 3 teams less than 45. Also a cap of 120 wouldn't work at all. With a 120 cap baseball would set the Yankees back at least 3 or 4 years while almost everyone else would be right where they are now. The only way a cap could be instituted would be keeping it high (say 180) and then lowering it by 10 each year until it gets down to about 100. Then they can do like the NFL and re-raise it by a little each year. A cap of 120 would just kill the Yankees. They'd have to cut almost 80 million from their payroll. The Red Sox would have to cut around 100,000 or so. No one else would have to do anything. The only thing that could ever logically work is with full revenue sharing and a cap and floor getting closer together for a few years. You'd probably have to see something start out at 180 and 40. And then get closer and closer each year (Going by 10-20 million each year, like 160-50 : 140-60 : 120-70 : 100-80). It'd be unfair to force a few teams to dramatically increase/decrease in one year.