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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian_kid16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowe

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxV

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

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.