PDA

View Full Version : Salary Cap in MLB



Degenerate39
10-05-2006, 05:59 PM
I for one support the idea of having a salary cap in Major League Baseball. Look at the Yankees lineup they have an All-Star team basically. They have 80 million more dollars than the Sox do. You can add up the three bottom team's payrolls and the Yankees would have equal or more money I can't remember. Think of how much better off the teams like Cincinnati would be with a salary cap. Maybe we could get a good player that doesn't either strike out 200 times a season (Dunn) or spend 62 games of the year on the DL (Griffey). Don't get me wrong I love Griff and Dunn but we need more than just a broken down old man and a country boy that either hits a homer or doesn't hit at all. The Yankees have Johhny Damon (All-star), Derek Jeter (All-star), Bobby Abreu (All-star), A.Rod (Possible Hall of Famer), Giambi (All-star). And the list keeps going on and on. We have Griffey (Hall of Famer), Dunn (Don't know what to classify him), Arroyo (All-star), and Harang (All-star).

How is it far that the Yankees have a whole line up of All-stars and possible Hall of Famers and a team like the Marlins have... well D-Train? And if there was a salary cap then we could get another All-star possibly and then it could boost attedence and the team record. Hell if we had another All-star caliber player we would have made the playoffs. Maybe my opinion is biased because I hate the big salary teams but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

dougflynn23
10-05-2006, 06:18 PM
:) I'm all for a salary cap so long as it is accompanied by a salary floor; a minimum amount of money that every team is required to spend each year on their opening day 25 man roster or forfeit a draft pick

George Anderson
10-05-2006, 06:20 PM
There is one huge problem in implementing a salary cap.....the PLAYERS UNION!!!!:rolleyes:

HumnHilghtFreel
10-05-2006, 06:35 PM
I'm probably one of the people in the minority who don't think you need a cap. There are several small market teams that thrive. I don't think you should make it a money issue, just hold GMs accountable, don't let them use their resources as a crutch for putting together bad teams. Better drafting and scouting, putting more money into your farm system instead of overpriced free agents.

That's just my take on it though.

puca
10-05-2006, 06:52 PM
I hate salary caps and salary floors but any game where one player has 2+ times the resources as another is a sham. Would you play in a scrabble game where your opponent was allowed to draw twice the number of tiles as you? Would you play poker in a game where one player was dealt twice the number of cards? Not me. It may be possible to win but it is a fools proposition. If I was a mid-market team I would be very leary spending beyond my means because there is relatively little chance of ending the year with the best team.

My solution. Meaningful revenue sharing and ensurance that the shared money is spent on baseball operations.

Unassisted
10-05-2006, 07:10 PM
The MLBPA would never let a salary cap see the light of day. It would seem at first glance like a cap would help the Reds. But where the current lack of a cap leads to situations where players get too expensive for small-market teams like the Reds, a cap like the NFL's would lead to situations where middling players don't get re-signed because they take up too much room under the cap.

That might have kept the Reds from re-signing Jason LaRue: a move which looks good in retrospect, but which would have been unpopular at the time. It might have also forced them to deal Sean Casey before he signed, rather than after.

I'll leave it to someone else to come up with examples where not re-signing a middle-of-the-road player would have really hurt. ;)

Blimpie
10-05-2006, 08:27 PM
The MLBPA would never let a salary cap see the light of day. People used to say the same thing about steroid testing. Climates change--I am not so sure anymore.

GridironGrace
10-05-2006, 09:41 PM
Yea players union wont let it happen :( too much money is lost by players and agents then.. and the union for that matter.

Although I wish they would get a Cap :( . Im more intrested in seeing more Telivised games for local teams.. i live in So. Kentucky and the only time i can watch the Reds is when thier playing a Chicago team(WGN) or the Braves(TBS).

Id rather see some Weekly games elsewhere besides ESPN cause they always show the yanks or redsox games.. never see the reds on ESPN :(

KronoRed
10-05-2006, 09:54 PM
Forget a cap, full revenue sharing would help more

Col_ IN Reds fan
10-05-2006, 10:56 PM
The reason the cap works in the NFL is that most of the revenue is shared.
IMO a salary cap will not work without full revenue sharing, and I just don't see that happening in the near future.

fearofpopvol1
10-06-2006, 12:02 AM
All for it.

I think it should be $100 million.

RedFanAlways1966
10-06-2006, 08:19 AM
All for it. I think it should be $100 million.

Where it s/b set is a good question if it where to happen. Based on the salaries at the start of this season:

* Avg. team salary (all 30 teams) = $77.557 million
* Avg. team salary (w/out Yanks) = $73.519 million
* Avg. team salary (no NYY or FLA) = $75.609 million
>> Teams above $75 million payroll = 14

$75 million almost seems like the magic number to me as of today.

Blimpie
10-06-2006, 08:21 AM
Where it s/b set is a good question if it where to happen. Based on the salaries at the start of this season:

* Avg. team salary (all 30 teams) = $77.557 million
* Avg. team salary (w/out Yanks) = $73.519 million
* Avg. team salary (no NYY or FLA) = $75.609 million
>> Teams above $75 million payroll = 14

$75 million almost seems like the magic number to me as of today.I am not so sure that $ 75 million would even take care of the Yankees pitching staff...

Edited: Upon further review, get this:

Yankees 2006 Payroll number for their twelve active pitchers = $ 75,151,611


New York Yankees 2006 Salaries
PLAYER SALARY (US$)
Mike Mussina 19,000,000
Randy Johnson 15,661,427
Mariano Rivera 10,500,000
Carl Pavano 8,000,000
Jaret Wright 7,666,667
Kyle Farnsworth 5,416,667
Cory Lidle 3,300,000
Ron Villone 2,250,000
Tanyon Sturtze 1,500,000
Mike Myers 1,150,000
Scott Proctor 353,675
Chien-Ming Wang 353,175

Total Team Salary: 198,662,180


The amazing thing is that only $ 706,850 of that figure is allotted to Wang and Proctor--two pitchers that have come up HUGE for the Yanks this year.

goreds2
10-06-2006, 08:50 AM
Marty Brennaman was right on the money saying to get a salary cap, a one year strike would have to occur. Then, you would have a problem with the fans coming back to the games.

vaticanplum
10-06-2006, 01:12 PM
Carl Pavano 8,000,000

Every time I see this it's like a knife in my soul.

Z-Fly
10-06-2006, 01:36 PM
:) I'm all for a salary cap so long as it is accompanied by a salary floor; a minimum amount of money that every team is required to spend each year on their opening day 25 man roster or forfeit a draft pick

I don't beleive in a salary floor. This would cause players that are undeserving of big contracts to get paid extra because a team just doesn't want to lose a draft pick. If a team drafts well and has a team full of young cheap studs and doesn't need a high priced vet. Why should they have to sign somebody for the sake of signing somebody.

If a team is clearly pocketing the money then the Comish. should step in and have something to say about it.

As for there being a one year strike, I am all for it. I used to be a huge baseball fan, but every year I become less of one. I just have trouble watching a product that doesn't have level playing field. That's why I love the NFL. I wasn't always this way. I like watching a league that if you run your team right you will be able to be competitive.

paulrichjr
10-07-2006, 11:01 AM
I think revenue sharing is fine but does anyone know about the Yanks deal and revenue sharing once their stadium is built? I believe the Yanks figured out that they can build a stadium and pay for it themselves and NOT have to pay revenue sharing for a few years while they do so. Can you imagine a team getting 20 million a year from revenue sharing and then the Yanks part of it goes away?

I think revenue sharing has worked very well. Just look at how many different teams win now besides the Yanks. The wild card has also helped a lot as it has kept many teams in it until the end where in the 60s or 70s those same teams would have been gone in June.

RedFanAlways1966
10-07-2006, 12:02 PM
I think revenue sharing has worked very well. Just look at how many different teams win now besides the Yanks. The wild card has also helped a lot as it has kept many teams in it until the end where in the 60s or 70s those same teams would have been gone in June.

I respectfully disagree with ya, paul. You still have 1 team, the Yanks, who spend almost twice as much as the 2nd highest spending team. That is ridiculous. Revenue sharing has faults... low-spenders do not invest the revenue obtained thru revenue sharing on the team and big-spenders are very good at "hiding" revenues. Revenue sharing is not on the same planet relative to fairness amongst all teams compared to a reasonable salary cap. It can be argued that revenue sharing is more about making all owners happier (richer) than it is about making the playing field level for all teams and their fans.

The Wild Card should not be correlated with revenue sharing. More teams stay alive b/c of the increase in playoff teams. Used to be two teams in MLB made it to post-season (thru 1968). Then 4 teams made it thru 2003. Then they went to 8 teams in 1994, which was the strike year... so it really started in 1995. Now it is 8 teams due to more divisions and the Wild Card.

* 1968: 2 teams out of 20 made playoffs (10.0%).
* 1993: 4 teams out of 26 made playoffs (15.4%).
* 2006: 8 teams out of 30 made playoffs (26.7%).

The Wild Card keeps more teams alive b/c it is up for grabs for all teams. Do not have to worry about 1 team in your respective division having a ridiculous W-L record which dashes the hopes of all others in that respective division.

westofyou
10-07-2006, 12:15 PM
<offtopic>
RFA66... quick question.. do you have that wonderful excel sheet for the 2006 season? I'd love to play with it.</offtopic>

RedFanAlways1966
10-07-2006, 12:34 PM
<offtopic>
RFA66... quick question.. do you have that wonderful excel sheet for the 2006 season? I'd love to play with it.</offtopic>

Thanks for asking, woy. I do have it. Shoot me a PM w/ an e-mail address and I'll be more than happy to send it to you!

I'll have to see if Unassisted can put it on-line like he has done before so others can get to it.

fearofpopvol1
10-08-2006, 12:46 AM
I think 100 million is good because it is higher than the average, so it gives many teams the option of expanding, or at least staying competitive based on current numbers. There are what, 3 or 4 teams over 100 million currently? Outside of the Yankes, I don't think any of the others are much over that mark.

TeamBoone
10-09-2006, 12:38 AM
I have a question about NFL salary caps.

I didn't realize until today that I guess I don't really know what that means. I mean, yes, I know but I don't know how it applies... does it apply to players' salaries or does it apply to team payroll? If it's players' salaries, is it set differently depending upon position or is it across the board?

Jim
10-09-2006, 04:38 PM
Rather than a salary cap, how about non-guaranteed contracts? When players like Milton suck, you're not stuck with their stupid contract and can spend it elsewhere.

Or maybe baseball should take an approach like any hourly job, but treat it "per inning" or "per game". If a player excels, they get a better rate and more innings/games. If a player sucks, they can be fired and can go find a job elsewere.