Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does MLB need a Salary Cap?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by MaxV
    Originally posted by yourfavestoner
    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.


    Originally posted by BrownsTown

    If Chase Daniel finishes top 5 in the Heisman I'll cut my balls off.

    2008 COTTON BOWL CHAMPIONS

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by yourfavestoner
      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.
      Another victim of Ontario's public education system.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Belish
        Originally posted by yourfavestoner
        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.


        Originally posted by BrownsTown

        If Chase Daniel finishes top 5 in the Heisman I'll cut my balls off.

        2008 COTTON BOWL CHAMPIONS

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Belish
          Originally posted by yourfavestoner
          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.

          Comment


          • #50
            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.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Finsfan79
              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.

              Comment


              • #52
                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.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Finsfan79
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by MaxV
                    Originally posted by Finsfan79
                    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.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X

                    Debug Information