Salary Cap

[George H Ruth]

I was thinking about this driving into the office and listening to the Colin Cowheard show on ESPN radio. He said as of today, 13 teams are already mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs. It's barely June 3rd.

Is it time for a salary cap in baseball? He argued no, that it goes everything he believes in when it comes to finances, and as someone who believes in free market capitalism, I can see his point.

However, the Yankess v. the Red Sox is not the same as Sears v. J.C. Penney, Gateway v. Dell, Nike v. Adidas, etc...the Yankees NEED the Red Sox and the rest of MLB to survive. They only compete against each other in the field, not in the market. MLB, just like the NFL, NBA, etc..are one brand. The Cowboys need the Eagles, the Lakers need to Celtics, Wal-Mart doesn't need Target. They're truly competitors, baseball teams aren't.

So how can MLB keep putting out a product in which the teams that spend the most money are always in contention and those that don't are, and expect the fans to keep interested in the product? And yes I know there are instances of teams being one of the lowest paid and making the playoffs and the Yankess not making it but that is far and few between. NY is always in contention, the Pirates aren't.

So is it time for a salary cap in baseball? I say yes, what say you?

[Milt on Tilt]

I don't think that's even remotely possible. 13 teams already mathematically eliminated? Besides, is that bad? We're 1/3 through the season, we should have an idea who the good teams are.

Addressing the salary cap, no thank you. They have Revenue Sharing already. IIRC, the Yankees didn't make the playoffs last year...

[Rich the Giants fan]

13 teams already mathamatically eliminated? That's seriously wrong. If the Nationals, at 14-36 the worst team in MLB, were to go on the most amazing run in sports history and won every single game they have left, they'd finish with 126 wins which I'm fairly certain would win them the NL East. Clearly they are not mathamatically eliminated.

Of course this is never going to happen but it's more realistic than 13 teams being eliminated 1/3 of the way into the season.

[Rich the Giants fan]

Revenue sharing is a joke and just because the Yankees didn't make the playoffs last year, doesn't mean they didn't begin building their team without an advantage over the rest of MLB due to their tremendous sources of revenue.

[Bennybosox]

I'd be in favor of a salary cap, but you've got to put a maximum and minimum on that cap or it'll never work.

Example: you're team is capped at a maximum of $150MM annual payroll, but lower market teams have to spend a minimum of $65MM

It blows my mind to see a team like the Marlins spend $22MM in 2008 in payroll, but bring in over $30MM in revenue sharing alone. Without a Maximum/ Minimum you'll continue to see the same competitive unbalance no matter how you cap the maximum spending.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I was thinking about this driving into the office and listening to the Colin Cowheard show on ESPN radio. He said as of today, 13 teams are already mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs. It's barely June 3rd.

Is it time for a salary cap in baseball? He argued no, that it goes everything he believes in when it comes to finances, and as someone who believes in free market capitalism, I can see his point.

However, the Yankess v. the Red Sox is not the same as Sears v. J.C. Penney, Gateway v. Dell, Nike v. Adidas, etc...the Yankees NEED the Red Sox and the rest of MLB to survive. They only compete against each other in the field, not in the market. MLB, just like the NFL, NBA, etc..are one brand. The Cowboys need the Eagles, the Lakers need to Celtics, Wal-Mart doesn't need Target. They're truly competitors, baseball teams aren't.

So how can MLB keep putting out a product in which the teams that spend the most money are always in contention and those that don't are, and expect the fans to keep interested in the product? And yes I know there are instances of teams being one of the lowest paid and making the playoffs and the Yankess not making it but that is far and few between. NY is always in contention, the Pirates aren't.

So is it time for a salary cap in baseball? I say yes, what say you?
I saw no. I really don't understand why poeple think that a salary caop will allow teams like the Pirates, Royals, and Orioles to be playoff contenders? The NBA has had a cap for years yet teams like the Clippers and Warriors, and many others never compete for playoff spots. Why do you think that is? It's becasue a team;s fotune's are more tied to how their management run the team, how they draft, and develop players. The Yankees can spend more money because they simply generate more money than any other team.

[NYMets523]

Of course this is never going to happen but it's more realistic than 13 teams being eliminated 1/3 of the way into the season.

No. 13 teams being mathematically eliminated now is more realistic than the Nats winning every game because the former has just happened.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

No team is mathematically eliminated yet. That probably won't happen until mid August at the earliest.

[spark240]

I was thinking about this driving into the office and listening to the Colin Cowheard show on ESPN radio. He said as of today, 13 teams are already mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs.

Some misuse the term "mathematical elimination." I think, if Mr. Cowheard had understood what the term means, and then thought about what he was trying to say, he would have said something like "effectively eliminated."

The Yankees can spend more money because they simply generate more money than any other team.

I do not accept the notion that the Yankees "generate" all the revenue that they receive. I believe they are beneficiaries of an archaic (pre-pay television) structure, and of course their location in a huge metropolis.

The Yankees should reap the legitimate benefits of their popularity and success, but within the context of a fair system.

So is it time for a salary cap in baseball? I say yes, what say you?

No. I agree that revenue disparity is both unfair and bad for the game. I don't believe that a salary cap is the correct solution. It is a "tail end" approach, which attempts to force the unfair disparity back toward an artificial parity. Why not address the problem at the front end, with the revenue stream itself? Give every team its fair share of the proceeds from every television contract.

[Rich the Giants fan]

I do not accept the notion that the Yankees "generate" all the revenue that they receive. I believe they are beneficiaries of an archaic (pre-pay television) structure, and of course their location in a huge metropolis.

They called the old Yankee Stadium, The House That Ruth Built. They call the new Yankee Stadium, The House That YES Network Built.

[Rich the Giants fan]

No. 13 teams being mathematically eliminated now is more realistic than the Nats winning every game because the former has just happened.
So you are saying 13 teams HAVE indeed been eliminated already? Seriously, think about that.

[sturg1dj]

how often is it mentioned that the Yankee's team salary is lower than last season. I hate the Yanks and Sox for all the money they spend but money doesn't guarantee anything.


and it makes things so much sweeter when David beats Goliath.

[Rich the Giants fan]

how often is it mentioned that the Yankee's team salary is lower than last season. I hate the Yanks and Sox for all the money they spend but money doesn't guarantee anything.


and it makes things so much sweeter when David beats Goliath.
Whoever said it guaranteed anything? It just gives them a distinct advantage (that they really cannot be blamed for).

As for that lower payroll, when you are talking $201 M versus $209 M, I cannot really see how that's making much difference (source: http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2009)

[NYMets523]

So you are saying 13 teams HAVE indeed been eliminated already? Seriously, think about that.

13 teams being eliminated now is a lot more realistic than the Nationals winning every game from here on out. The longest winning streak in modern baseball history is only 20 games.

[Rich the Giants fan]

13 teams being eliminated now is a lot more realistic than the Nationals winning every game from here on out. The longest winning streak in modern baseball history is only 20 games.

13 teams being eliminated in roughly 50 games out of a 162 game season is mathamatically IMPOSSIBLE!

Winning every game from here on out is (obviously) EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, but not theoretically or mathamatically impossible.

[sturg1dj]

Whoever said it guaranteed anything? It just gives them a distinct advantage (that they really cannot be blamed for).

As for that lower payroll, when you are talking $201 M versus $209 M, I cannot really see how that's making much difference (source: http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2009)

well who said MLB was fair?

I hate the Yanks, I hate the salary differences...but I hate the NFL more. I hate having salary cap hits.

there are so many ways in which MLB is unfair.

Labor practices = unfair (monopoly)
Divisions = unfair (some have more teams than others and since each division sends at least one team to the playoffs it means that a team in the AL West has an easier chance to make it than a team in the NL Central)
Geography = unfair (travel costs money and take a lot out of players...even in first class...teams on the west coast travel more than other teams)


Baseball is a great sport because of its imperfections. The fields are shaped differently and there is much human error. Capping the NFL makes sense because its more uniform with more discipline. Baseball isn't that at all. Its beautiful, and we should try not to change that much.

Which makes me laugh because I know I contradicted myself somewhere here...haha.

[Seattle1]

http://images3.cafepress.com/product/30859923v1_350x350_Front.jpg

:laugh

:rofl:

[Rich the Giants fan]

Sturg1dj, you may want to note that I have not once advocated in favor of a cap.

[George H Ruth]

I saw no. I really don't understand why poeple think that a salary caop will allow teams like the Pirates, Royals, and Orioles to be playoff contenders? The NBA has had a cap for years yet teams like the Clippers and Warriors, and many others never compete for playoff spots. Why do you think that is? It's becasue a team;s fotune's are more tied to how their management run the team, how they draft, and develop players. The Yankees can spend more money because they simply generate more money than any other team.

Yeah, I read back and I realized I misspoke, 13 teams are ALMOST emiminated.

True, but first off the NBA salary cap, other than the rookie cap, is a joke. It doesn't add to parity there are a million exceptions. But most importantly, fans can at least blame management and ask for a change, ie Detroit getting rid of Matt Millen. As it is in baseball, team managment goes out the window. Kansas City can't compete with New York, no matter how good management is. Those teams start off with two strikes against them before the season even starts. In the NFL, any team can go from worst to first on any given year. For a team to do that in baseball, a team has to hit lightning in a bottle. Thus, there's no hope. Which is why August is an NFL month now, and baseball ratings are dwindling.

It's because those teams have to build for years and years (some almost decades) to be anywhere near competitive since they can't afford big name players and players won't go to their teams because they suck. It creates a cycle that big money helps perpetuate.

[Ace Venom]

One of the things that negates large spending is the long season. In the NFL, you only have 16 regular season games, which is soon to be 18 games. The season is very short compared to the NHL, NBA and MLB. Salary cap proponents often ignore this fact and other facts.

1) Salary caps do not bring true parity: The Tampa Bay Lightning may have won a Stanley Cup, but it has not stopped the Detroit Red Wings from being a power house. It has not stopped the New England Patriots from being yearly NFL contenders. Does it move talent around? Sure. But just because you are moving talent around doesn't guarantee that Team X getting Player 1 from Team Y can win a championship or even be a playoff contender with that Player.

2) Owners benefit more from salary caps: Teams on lower budgets benefit from revenue sharing, but this doesn't change the fact that some teams are not contenders simply because owners are not spending money, scouting is poor or the talent they're fielding is not getting it done. The Milwaukee Brewers and Tampa Bay Rays are excellent recent examples of how to develop your talent and continue building on that.

3) Longer seasons expose more than shorter seasons: This is something NHL and NBA fans know that NFL fans do not know. The New Orleans Hornets may well have done much better this past season without all the injury issues to their star players. They did make the playoffs, but they were a shadow of the team that won a division title. The New England Patriots, on the other hand, were about 30 game seconds away from a 19-0 season not that long ago.

A salary cap in baseball is not the solution. In fact, the problem isn't even there. You could say there's actually more risk being a team with a large payroll because of no trade clauses, lengthy contracts and potential injury issues to your star players. Spend at your own risk.

[Milt on Tilt]

As it is in baseball, team managment goes out the window. Kansas City can't compete with New York, no matter how good management is. Those teams start off with two strikes against them before the season even starts.

The two strikes might have to do with giving Jose Guillen 12 M a year and allocating 55M to Gil Meche (not to say Meche is bad, but it's not where KC should be putting their money). The margin for error is small with small budget teams and missteps are punished.

[Rich the Giants fan]

Kansas City can't compete with New York, no matter how good management is.

Now that's simply not true. Money gives the Yankees an advantage, but certainly doesn't mean the Royals have no chance at all. Give Peter Angelos the Yankees payroll and he's still going to be an idiot.

And while 13 teams may (or may not) have dropped out of contention by virture of the reality of their situation, there isn't a team in baseball that is even vaguely close to being mathamatically eliminated right now.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

True, but first off the NBA salary cap, other than the rookie cap, is a joke. It doesn't add to parity there are a million exceptions. But most importantly, fans can at least blame management and ask for a change, ie Detroit getting rid of Matt Millen.
Since when do NFL fans have the power to make teams change management?


As it is in baseball, team managment goes out the window. Kansas City can't compete with New York, no matter how good management is.Those teams start off with two strikes against them before the season even starts.
That's just not true. The Royals can't compete becasue they don't have enough good players to beat the Yankees. Yet, the Rays do have enough good players to compete.


In the NFL, any team can go from worst to first on any given year. For a team to do that in baseball, a team has to hit lightning in a bottle. Thus, there's no hope. Which is why August is an NFL month now, and baseball ratings are dwindling.

Isn't an NFL team going from worst to first also capturing "lightening in a bottle"? In the past few years teams like the Carolina Panthers, Atlanta Falcons, Seattle Seahawks, Oakland Raiders, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Arizona Cardinals captured lightening in a bottle and either won a Super Bowl or played in one. Within a short time all these teams returned to mediocrity. If that is not the the definition of capturing lightening in a bottle I don't know what is? What team is more likely to have long term success, the Arizona Cardinals or the Tampa Bay Rays? My money is on the Rays for sure.

[George H Ruth]

Since when do NFL fans have the power to make teams change management?


That's just not true. The Royals can't compete becasue they don't have enough good players to beat the Yankees. Yet, the Rays do have enough good players to compete.



Isn't an NFL team going from worst to first also capturing "lightening in a bottle"? In the past few years teams like the Carolina Panthers, Atlanta Falcons, Seattle Seahawks, Oakland Raiders, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Arizona Cardinals captured lightening in a bottle and either won a Super Bowl or played in one. Within a short time all these teams returned to mediocrity. If that is not the the definition of capturing lightening in a bottle I don't know what is? What team is more likely to have long term success, the Arizona Cardinals or the Tampa Bay Rays? My money is on the Rays for sure.


Teams react to the wants of their fans all the time.

The point is as a fan, I can live with my team making bad management decisions. That can always change. Look at Detroit. Badly run team, losing again and again. Matt Milen is gone, they draft Matt Stafford and suddenly there's hope. Look at Atlanta, their QB is indicted in federal court, their coach quits on them before the season starts, they draft Matt Ryan, and suddenly they're winners again. What are the odds of that happening in baseball? What chance does Kansas City ever have to make the playoffs again? I don't care who they draft, if he's got superstar potential, he'll ge gone soon anyway.

And no, due to all the examples you gave, that's not capturing lightning in a bottle. Any team can turn it around from one season to the next. And any team can return to mediocrity like you said. Not the same as baseball. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. There's little to no hope for the Pirates fans, no matter who they draft.

[Rich the Giants fan]

Teams react to the wants of their fans all the time.


I guess the Lions were either half deaf, or slow to catch their fan's drift (more likely the latter), because they had been calling for Millen's head on a platter for years before he finally got canned.

[Milt on Tilt]

What chance does Kansas City ever have to make the playoffs again?

I'm going to go ahead and say they have a 100% chance of ever making the playoffs again.

[philliesfiend55]

As I pointed out in a similar thread that I initiated, the Yankees are always in contention for a Worlds Title and it's a bit amazing that they've gone 0 for 8 since their last title in 2000.
If they start winning back-to-back Worlds Titles the support for a salary cap among other owners will grow by leaps and bounds. In a true league teams have got to have a chance to compete and win the ultimate prize and not just be a patsy for a richer team with deep pockets who can outbid the other teams for the top free agents. The amateur draft, begun in 1965 did alot to even the playing field. It prevented players from signing with a dominant team out of high school or college and thereby helping them to perpetuate that team's dynasty. However, the free agent draft. begun between the 1976 and 1977 seasons destroyed that parity that had been created and has more than offset the democracy of the amateur draft reform. Now teams had the opportunity to sign "prime of their career" talent and it's no coincidence that after a down decade of subpar performances the Yankees rose to the top again in the late '70s with the addition of Reggie Jackson and other top free agents. Nobody wants to play the role of the Washington Generals to one dominant team's role of the Harlem Globetrotters, where the outcome of the game and the season is all but determined from the start. In other words, no one wants to play Poker if the deck is stacked against them.

-philliesfiend55-

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The point is as a fan, I can live with my team making bad management decisions. That can always change. Look at Detroit. Badly run team, losing again and again. Matt Milen is gone, they draft Matt Stafford and suddenly there's hope.
There is hope because of Matt Stafford being drafted? Lets see how this turned in about four years. I suspect the Lions will still be terrible in four years unless they start having many good players.


Look at Atlanta, their QB is indicted in federal court, their coach quits on them before the season starts, they draft Matt Ryan, and suddenly they're winners again.
You mean like the Twins, A's, and Indians have been winners of the past decade?


What are the odds of that happening in baseball? What chance does Kansas City ever have to make the playoffs again? I don't care who they draft, if he's got superstar potential, he'll ge gone soon anyway.
You mean like the Angels ('02) and the Marlins ('03)? The Twins have won several divison titles in the past decade. The Rays won the AL pennant just last year. Also, how does a cap stop great players from leaving, say, the Royals? Lets say when Zach Grienke becomes a free agent and there is a salary cap in palce. How will a cap help the Royals retain Grienke? The Royals will still need the money to sign and keep Grienke. Limiting the Yankees' payroll has no bearing on how much money the Royals will have to sign Grienke.


And no, due to all the examples you gave, that's not capturing lightning in a bottle. Any team can turn it around from one season to the next. And any team can return to mediocrity like you said.

This is EXACTLY the definiton of capturing "lightening in a bottle". The Rays came out of nowhere to win the AL pennant last seaon. That is no different than the Arizona Cardinals, Seattle Seahawks, and Carolina Panthers, and Atlanta Falcons capturing NFC titles the past 10 years.


Not the same as baseball. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. There's little to no hope for the Pirates fans, no matter who they draft.

That is simply not true. The Pirates are terrible because they are clueless in terms of drafting and player development. Can you name one great player that the Pirates drafted and developed and lost because they couldn't afford to pay him in the past 15 years? And Brian Giles and Jason Bay don't count becasue the Pirates didn't draft or develop them.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

As I pointed out in a similar thread that I initiated, the Yankees are always in contention for a Worlds Title and it's a bit amazing that they've gone 0 for 8 since their last title in 2000.
If they start winning back-to-back Worlds Titles the support for a salary cap among other owners will grow by leaps and bounds. In a true league teams have got to have a chance to compete and win the ultimate prize and not just be a patsy for a richer team with deep pockets who can outbid the other teams for the top free agents. The amateur draft, begun in 1965 did alot to even the playing field. It prevented players from signing with a dominant team out of high school or college and thereby helping them to perpetuate that team's dynasty. However, the free aggent draft. begun between the 1976 and 1977 seasons destroyed that parity that had been created and has more than offset the democracy of the amateur draft reform.

That is not how history unfolded. The 1970s saw a small group of dominant teams win most of the division titles.

NL East
Pirates- 6 division titles
Phillies- 3 division titles
NY Mets- 1 division title

NL West
Reds- 6 division titles
Dodgers- 3 divison titles
Giants -1 division title

AL East
Orioles-5 division titles
Yankees-3 division titles
Tigers-1 divison title
Boston-1 Divison

AL West
Athletics- 5 divison titles
Royals- 3 division titles
Angels- 1 divison title
Twins- 1 division titles


Now teams had the opportunity to sign "prime of their career" talent and it's no coincidence that after a down decade of subpar performances the Yankees rose to the top again in the late '70s with the addition of Reggie Jackson and other top free agents.
The Yankees that won three straight AL pennants (1976-78) were mostly built by home grown talent and trades and not free agency. Reggie wasn't even on the 1976 team.

[philliesfiend55]

The Yankees that won three straight AL pennants (1976-78) were mostly built by home grown talent and trades and not free agency. Reggie wasn't even on the 1976 team.

Reggie wasn't part of that 4-0 sweep by the Big Red Machine of the Yankees either. You have to admit that his addition helped pull a "wannabe champion" team over the hump to 'legitimate greatness'.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Reggie wasn't part of that 4-0 sweep by the Big Red Machine of the Yankees either. You have to admit that his addition helped pull a "wannabe champion" team over the hump to 'legitimate greatness'.

How are the 1976 NY Yankees wannabe champions? They were the AL champions that happened to play one of the greatest teams of all time in 1976. Of course Jackson helped in 1977. But the core championship team was already in place when he arrived.

[SilentKiller]

The NFL didn't get to the position they are in now by copying MLB. I don't see any reason for MLB to copy the NFL.

[philliesfiend55]

How are the 1976 NY Yankees wannabe champions? They were the AL champions that happened to play one of the greatest teams of all time in 1976. Of course Jackson helped in 1977. But the core championship team was already in place when he arrived.

The 1976 Yankees team won the American League playoffs over Kansas City by an eyelash. As good as that '76 team was, they were much improved by Jackson's addition in '77. Jackson was the Yankees first big free agent signing (not counting Catfish Hunter who was able to escape his contract in Oakland in '75 on a legal techicality/loophole). Jackson didn't merely take the Yankees over the hump to a championship, his 3-home run game in Game 6 of The World Series nailed the coffin shut on the Dodgers! An emphatic statement of greatness!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The 1976 Yankees team won the American League playoffs over Kansas City by an eyelash.
And 1977 Yankees beat the Royals over an even smaller eyelash. The Royals were ahead 3-2 in Game 5 and were three outs away from beating the Yankees and winning the AL pennant. The Yankees rallied to score three runs in the top of the 9th inning. And what did Reggie do in that inning? He grounded out to end the inning.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/KCA/KCA197710090.shtml

So without the 9th inning heroics the '77 Yankees wouldn't even have been in the World Series.



As good as that '76 team was, they were much improved by Jackson's addition in '77. Jackson was the Yankees first big free agent signing (not counting Catfish Hunter who was able to escape his contract in Oakland in '75 on a legal techicality/loophole


1976 Yankees
97-62 W-L (.610)
730 runs scored (2nd in the AL)
575 runs allowed (1st in the AL)

1977 Yankees
100-62 W-L (.617)
827 runs scored (4th in the AL)
651 runs allowed (tied, 1st in the AL)

It looks like the 1976-77 Yankees basically had the same regular season performance. Reggie didn't even lead the '77 Yankees in HRs. Craig Nettle did. The Yankees got lots of production from Reggie, Nettles, and Munson. Also, the development of Ron Guidry in 1977 gave the Yankees another quality pitcher.


Jackson didn't merely take the Yankees over the hump to a championship, his 3-home run game in Game 6 of The World Series nailed the coffin shut on the Dodgers! An emphatic statement of greatness!
Reggie wasn't the only reason the Yankees were World Series Champions in 1977 as I stated before.

[sturg1dj]

Its not like either team was particularly home grown


in the 1976 team only two of the starting 9 were with their original team
Munson
Roy White

in 1977 it was the same two

also I believe that the 1976 team had another high priced free agent and it did not help in the end.....Catfish Hunter.

[George H Ruth]

[quote]You mean like the Twins, A's, and Indians have been winners of the past decade?

Zero World Series appearances between them in the last 12 years.


You mean like the Angels ('02)

They're hardly a small market team. I don't know what their payroll was in '02, but this year they have the 6th highest in the league.


That is simply not true. The Pirates are terrible because they are clueless in terms of drafting and player development. Can you name one great player that the Pirates drafted and developed and lost because they couldn't afford to pay him in the past 15 years? And Brian Giles and Jason Bay don't count becasue the Pirates didn't draft or develop them.

Aramis Ramirez. Jason Kendall.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Zero World Series appearances between them in the last 12 years.

Ok? How any times has the Twins, A's and Indians been in the postseaosn the past 12 years? A bunch.



They're hardly a small market team. I don't know what their payroll was in '02, but this year they have the 6th highest in the league.
In '06 the Angles had the 15th highest payroll and they were closer to the lowest payroll than to the highest payroll.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2002




Aramis Ramirez. Jason Kendall.

That's the best the Pirates can do since 1993? Also, Ramirez only had one good year for the Pirates and he floundered the rest of the time.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

George H Ruth,

Can you explain to me how capping the Yankees and Red Sox payroll will create more money for the Royals to sign Zach Greinke to a long term contract. I don't see causation here.

[Rich the Giants fan]

George H Ruth,

Can you explain to me how capping the Yankees and Red Sox payroll will create more money for the Royals to sign Zach Greinke to a long term contract. I don't see causation here.
One thing it would help do would be to keep Greinke's value from shooting through the roof. The Yankees, and to a lesser extent the Red Sox, would likely be maxed out and be unable to outbid the competition by $40 million as they did with Sabathia. This would help to keep Greinke in the Royals financial ballpark.

Assuming the Royals hadn't maxed out their theoretical cap, then I'm sure they could afford him. I mean, if they are willing to spend $55 million on Gil Meche...

[Honus Wagner Rules]

One thing it would help do would be to keep Greinke's value from shooting through the roof.
So basically you want to limit a player's income potential. I'm sure Zack Greinke will appreciate that. :happy:


The Yankees, and to a lesser extent the Red Sox, would likely be maxed out and be unable to outbid the competition by $40 million as they did with Sabathia. This would help to keep Greinke in the Royals financial ballpark.
Assuming the Royals hadn't maxed out their theoretical cap, then I'm sure they could afford him. I mean, if they are willing to spend $55 million on Gil Meche...
That still doesn't explain how the Royals will have more money to keep Zack Grienke. Teams like the Brewers still offered Sabathia a four year $100 million contract. The Brewers offered just as much per season. The Yankees simply offered more years.

[Bennybosox]

Long term deals, gaurenteed contracts and the size of the roster make a MLB salary cap impossible.

In the NFL teams free cap space by cutting players, and because the contracts are not gaurenteed outside of signing bonus money the teams can simply add and subtract players and money.

In order to manage a salary cap in MLB and keep the flexibility to add free agents to fill the needs of a 25 man roster year over year you would essentially have to eliminate long term deals or eliminate gaurenteed money--neither of which will ever be approved by the MLBPA

The concept of a salary cap in MLB is a good one, and I believe that within three years of putting it into place you would see more competitive balance, but the players would never allow it to happen--NEVER

[Rich the Giants fan]

So basically you want to limit a player's income potential. I'm sure Zack Greinke will appreciate that. :happy:


That still doesn't explain how the Royals will have more money to keep Zack Grienke. Teams like the Brewers still offered Sabathia a four year $100 million contract. The Brewers offered just as much per season. The Yankees simply offered more years.

They would have more money by virtue of not having the market unresonably inflated by others.

As it is, without restrictions, a team like the Yankees can simply bid more than a team like the Royals can afford to bid (as they did with Milwaukee and Sabathia). With a cap in place, they would not be able to raise the offer so exhorbitantly and thus the Royals offer would, in effect, be worth more. And if the money is roughly equal, a player might be more willing to consider other factors in making his decision.

But do I want to limit a player's income? Well I'm not directly saying that but if the player's didn't earn so much, the owners wouldn't have to charge so much and perhaps then I could afford to go to a lot more games.

On the other hand, I still have not once in this thread ever actually advocated in favor of a cap. I have only addressed certain issues.

[d32123]

No to salary cap, but maybe a salary floor could work. It's ridiculous how little some of these teams spend. MLB should either make them spend more or they should raise MLB minimum wage in the next cba.

[jrh31584]

I came up with (probably someone else has come up with it as well) a formula for a salary floor, along with a big luxury tax hike. I lowered the luxury tax threshold to $120 million and raised the rate to 50%. Four teams would have to pay luxury tax at this level. I distributed this money among the 26 other teams, according to how far their payrolls were from $120 million. Add the bottom team's share of the luxury tax to their payroll to find next year's salary floor; going by USA Today's numbers, this would result in a salary floor of around $41.8 million.

[Zagi-CRO]

It's ridiculous how little some of these teams spend. MLB should either make them spend more or they should raise MLB minimum wage in the next cba.

Soccer giant Real Madrid will spent on Christiano Ronaldo's transfer near 94 mill EURO or $130 mill. only for ManUnd compensation.

Ronaldo's 6-years contract:

1 yr - 11 mill EUR or $15 mill
2 yr and other - 25% more
last year - $46,8 mill !!!

[Captain Cold Nose]

Soccer giant Real Madrid will spent on Christiano Ronaldo's transfer near 94 mill EURO or $130 mill. only for ManUnd compensation.

Ronaldo's 6-years contract:

1 yr - 11 mill EUR or $15 mill
2 yr and other - 25% more
last year - $46,8 mill !!!

So does that mean you're for or against an MLB cap? I don't see the connection here.

[Zagi-CRO]

So does that mean you're for or against an MLB cap? I don't see the connection here.

I'm against any restriction. If you have an interest and money - buy whatever you want! :lightbulb:
P.S.
President of Real Madrid's club Florentino Perez said they will earn about $1000 mill !!! with Christiano Ronaldo's trade from ManUtd /TV, sponsors, fans, jerseys...etc./

[SamtheBravesFan]

I'm against any restriction. If you have an interest and money - buy whatever you want! :lightbulb:
P.S.
President of Real Madrid's club Florentino Perez said they will earn about $1000 mill !!! with Christiano Ronaldo's trade from ManUtd /TV, sponsors, fans, jerseys...etc./

I seriously doubt they're going to earn a billion dollars, but I share your sentiment. Real Madrid shelled out a LOT of money for Ronaldo too.

[TonyStarks]

IMO, the only thing that should be capped is the MLB Draft! MLB should take a page from the NBA and implement pay slots.

The purpose of the MLB Draft is to help bad teams within 3 years or so. If a Player such as Strasburg is commanding a ridiculous contract then I don't see how that helps a team such as the Nationals. Because now they have money locked into a player who won't see the Big leagues for maybe 2 years and in that time frame the team maybe prevented from signging other Free Agents.

[Zagi-CRO]

I seriously doubt they're going to earn a billion dollars, but I share your sentiment. Real Madrid shelled out a LOT of money for Ronaldo too.

Yes, it's a huge money. Only for Kaka from AC Milan and CRonaldo they need about 450mill EUR or $620 mill, for 6 yrs. :cool: