Free Agency/Salary Cap?

[Astro]

While I doubt it will ever be possible, who would be in favor of a league-wide salary cap with penalities and a sliding scale from year to year, as with the NFL...

Something needs to be done before fan resentment grows too heavy from all of the crazy contracts players are signing, and all of the small-market teams losing their players year in and year out

[Cubsfan97]

Baseball should never have a Slaray Cap. It makes the game more interesting. It should stay "Highest bidder wins." IF there were a salaray cap there wouldnt be an all-time team that everyone can hate. Think of it this way, What if in the next five hyears your favorite team signed A-Rod, Pujols, Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds, Chris Carpenter, Roy Halladay, Mariano Rivera and Aramis Ramirez, win the world series, be on top year afetr year after year and then someone says "you need to dump half your team to maintain a salary cap." If your all realistic kind of people imagine your team are the yankees and you have top dump half your team. TYhat is why I like no salary cap. Not to mention we wouldnt have as many people being on the same team for 20 yrs.

[Brian McKenna]

whether you want a cap or not sooner or later everyone in the business is going to get tired of the few teams that spend such a great deal more on talent than others can afford

[hudsonharden]

Originally Posted by Cubsfan97

Think of it this way, What if in the next five hyears your favorite team signed A-Rod, Pujols, Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds, Chris Carpenter, Roy Halladay, Mariano Rivera and Aramis Ramirez, win the world series, be on top year afetr year after year and then someone says "you need to dump half your team to maintain a salary cap."

That would never happen because my team can't afford all those players.

Yall heard of the NFL rite? One of the big reasons that make it the #1 sport in America is the salary cap. Parody will always help a leauge.

[Dasperp]

Parody will always help a leauge.

I agree, it's what made the XFL so great. All kidding aside, i support a salary cap despite being a Yankee fan. The problem, aside from the refusal of the MLBPA to ever agree to it, would be how to institute it. Say it's set at 90 million, what would the Yankees be forced to do? Even if they wanted to, they could never find people to take on enough contracts to get their payroll down that much.

[ElCaminoSS]

I think there should be a salary cap.

[steveox]

I think theyre should be a team salary cap limit $100million per team payroll. Yanks can still spend but not as nearly they want like over $200 million.Theres lot of teams over $100 million.Just keep the good clubs who can afford those superstar players so just about every club can have a superstar player.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by steveox

I think theyre should be a team salary cap limit $100million per team payroll. Yanks can still spend but not as nearly they want like over $200 million.Theres lot of teams over $100 million.Just keep the good clubs who can afford those superstar players so just about every club can have a superstar player.

So, the majority of teams, and it is the majority, should be forced to fold because they aren't spending $100 million? Is that what you're saying?

[runningshoes]

If there's a salary cap, the player mentioned in cubsfan's post would have no choice but to be paid within the limits of a team's payroll; or they can go pump gas for a living.

[VTSoxFan]

Call me crazy, but before a salary cap is instituted, I think a salary FLOOR should be in place. It's not because I want the players to make more. It's to force the skinflint owners to pony up more to make thier teams competetive. It galls me to see fabulously wealthy owners like Pohlad cry poverty and let their teams starve, or even try to dissolve the team (and pocket a healthy sum in the deal) rather than actually part with money needed to sign and retain good players. If a team gets money from revenue sharing, that owner should be required to put that money back into the team, not into his pocket.

I too would love to see teams like Pittsburgh and KC have a better chance. But I don't know if forcing salary parity is a panacea for baseball's competetive imbalances.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by VTSoxFan

Call me crazy, but before a salary cap is instituted, I think a salary FLOOR should be in place. It's not because I want the players to make more. It's to force the skinflint owners to pony up more to make thier teams competetive. It galls me to see fabulously wealthy owners like Pohlad cry poverty and let their teams starve, or even try to dissolve the team (and pocket a healthy sum in the deal) rather than actually part with money needed to sign and retain good players. If a team gets money from revenue sharing, that owner should be required to put that money back into the team, not into his pocket.

I too would love to see teams like Pittsburgh and KC have a better chance. But I don't know if forcing salary parity is a panacea for baseball's competetive imbalances.

Excellent point, Annie. And seemingly so soon forgotten in throwing around figures as to how high the cap should be.

[BristolBoy]

Let's do a little comparison, shall we?

NFL: won by the same team 3 of the last 4 years
MLB: won by a different team every year for the last 5

Well whaddayaknow? There already is competitive balance! Case closed.

[trosmok]

Originally Posted by VTSoxFan

If a team gets money from revenue sharing, that owner should be required to put that money back into the team, not into his pocket.

... all thirty teams pooled 100% of the broadcast revenue and divided it equally, and use it exclusively for player's salaries we wouldn't even be discussing a cap. All thirty owners would be forced to work in concert to help their smaller market partners in MLB without making an upper limit income ceiling for the most expensive players. It isn't the superstar salaries that cause the disparity, it is throwing millions at mediocre players that kills the parity (not parody). The Yankees and Red Sox would still make the most money, thanks to geography and the marketing of their teams and associated merchandise better than anyone else. Attendance and ticket sales are only a small percentage of the actual revenue a club generates, but it is high time the rest of it is put toward MLB as a whole, instead of 30 egomaniacs tring to crush competition instead of thriving on it. Free market forces can be allowed to work, if the owners would only realize they are all in the same business, namely major league baseball.

[Brian McKenna]

a cap should involve a % range - rather than a specific $ figure that would be argued about yearly - say the mean is X then the teams could spend within the range X +/- 20% -- or something like it so that all teams are within striking distance of each other - this sets a floor and a ceiling - no one is unduly behind or ahead - even at the lower end it is reasonable to assume that one team could catch up in the standings by developing talent efficiently, drafting well, trading well, efficiently signing free agents, etc. plus executing on the field

the yankees really have an advantage with their local broadcast revenues - hell good for them - that's theirs - don't cry if your market doesn't - this should give them certain advantages in the boardroom - but it shouldn't give them such an overwhelming advantage in payroll and it shouldn't allow them to drive all labor costs up for the rest of the league and price many teams out - common sense dictates it - but the rich teams and the players currently have the votes to quash common sense in pursuit of the almighty dollar and glory

[sschirmer]

I can't believe nine people said "no". Must be nine Yankee fans, and "everyone else".

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by sschirmer

I can't believe nine people said "no". Must be nine Yankee fans, and "everyone else".

See posts 11, 14 and 15 (not to make light of what BristolBoy pointed out.)

[sschirmer]

I saw the posts, and some of the content is baffling. "Skin Flint Owners"? They can't be that cheap, as they've been the ones who allowed salaries to get as high as they are.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by sschirmer

I saw the posts, and some of the content is baffling. "Skin Flint Owners"? They can't be that cheap, as they've been the ones who allowed salaries to get as high as they are.

Some are, some aren't. People like David Glass of Kansas City and Carl Lindner of Cincinnati (who's only been the former owner for a very short period of time) are billionaires whose unwillingness to spend their own money and lack of huge broadcast/marketing revenue has put those once glorious franchises at a standstill.
Other teams are simply able to let their teams pay for themselves at a far better rate. A salary cap is like putting a band aid on an amputation.

[Barnstormer]

Originally Posted by BristolBoy

Let's do a little comparison, shall we?

NFL: won by the same team 3 of the last 4 years
MLB: won by a different team every year for the last 5

Well whaddayaknow? There already is competitive balance! Case closed.

Number of A.L. East teams that have made it to the playoffs in the last 8 years not named Yankees or Red Sox: zero.

And you are forgetting the 4 straight years (and 5 of 6) when the highest payroll team did in fact win the WS, 1998-2001.

It's not really that balanced.

[Dasperp]

The Yankees weren't the highest payroll team all those years, i think LA and Boston were ahead a couple of those years. But I agree that another big problem is owners who won't invest in their teams. Loria, fresh off his successful destruction of the Expos, is now holding a firesale and destroying any chance of building a fan base in Miami so that he can make a point to the city about a new stadium. I fear that if a more extreme revenue-sharing system were to be put into place, some of these owners like Pohlad and Glass would pocket the money instead of investing to rebuild these franchises and their fan bases.

[eurobaser]

Originally Posted by charlesblalack@yahoo.com

Yall heard of the NFL rite? One of the big reasons that make it the #1 sport in America is the salary cap. Parody will always help a leauge.

NFL is the richest LEAGUE but not necessarily the No.1 and not necessarily the No.1 SPORT.

Basketball and baseball/softball have more participants nationally and internationally than football/touch football and longer pro seasons and more games. NFL is a great show and very popular but as a SPORT football isn't necessarily No.1 on all ways of looking at it.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

Hey guys, this is not the NHL.

[Knick9]

Originally Posted by BristolBoy

Let's do a little comparison, shall we?

NFL: won by the same team 3 of the last 4 years
MLB: won by a different team every year for the last 5

Well whaddayaknow? There already is competitive balance! Case closed.

Not a legit arguement. You forget 1998-2001 as someone pointed out.

I'm sad to see 9 people who actually vote "No" when it is obvious that there is a financial problem in competitiveness. Once proud franchises in the Reds, Pirates, and Royals are in total sewage holes and the uncommitment of their owners is getting on my nerves. It's like there's no end to this.

AL East teams not named Yankees or Red Sox to make the playoffs (again, as someone pointed out): NONE.

While Angelos is arguing about the Nats coming in, (and rightfully so ), he is unwilling, though, to help his own team when they need it most. The O's couldn't pull off the Burnett trade while at the snap of a finger, the Red Sox zoom right by and will get Josh Beckett. Angelos is a douche, plain and simple.

Cubsfan97: I don't buy any of that. You should try being in the shoes of a Royals, Reds, and/or Pirates fan to see exactly what's wrong, same thing for everybody else. Even when they rebuild and make potential stars, after 1 good year or two, they all will end up being grabbed by the New England Baseball Financial Alliance of Doom, with the exception of the Mets. It's kind of like a food chain, two teams end up eating everyone else, and then the end. At least the Cubs can get guys like Nomar, Burnitz, A-Ram and D-Lee, and be graceful in defeat, while KC, Pittsburgh, and Cincy can't even buy a vowel. Plus, I don't mean to be harsh, but that arguement doesn't make any sense.

Yes to Salary Cap, end the New England bias.

EDIT: What, there's 11 people now?

[BristolBoy]

Originally Posted by Knick9

Not a legit arguement. You forget 1998-2001 as someone pointed out.

I'm sad to see 9 people who actually vote "No" when it is obvious that there is a financial problem in competitiveness. Once proud franchises in the Reds, Pirates, and Royals are in total sewage holes and the uncommitment of their owners is getting on my nerves. It's like there's no end to this.

AL East teams not named Yankees or Red Sox to make the playoffs (again, as someone pointed out): NONE.

While Angelos is arguing about the Nats coming in, (and rightfully so ), he is unwilling, though, to help his own team when they need it most. The O's couldn't pull off the Burnett trade while at the snap of a finger, the Red Sox zoom right by and will get Josh Beckett. Angelos is a douche, plain and simple.

Cubsfan97: I don't buy any of that. You should try being in the shoes of a Royals, Reds, and/or Pirates fan to see exactly what's wrong, same thing for everybody else. Even when they rebuild and make potential stars, after 1 good year or two, they all will end up being grabbed by the New England Baseball Financial Alliance of Doom, with the exception of the Mets. It's kind of like a food chain, two teams end up eating everyone else, and then the end. At least the Cubs can get guys like Nomar, Burnitz, A-Ram and D-Lee, and be graceful in defeat, while KC, Pittsburgh, and Cincy can't even buy a vowel. Plus, I don't mean to be harsh, but that arguement doesn't make any sense.

Yes to Salary Cap, end the New England bias.

EDIT: What, there's 11 people now?

Fair comment.

The point I was making though is that to use NFL as an argument supporting a salary cap is a flawed one - I admit that my argument against is hardly a foolproof one, but I think I got what I meant across.