Salary Cap? Try Salary FLOOR. | Moondizzle's Blog

The 21^st century introduced a new cold war, only this time it has nothing to do with bombers. Just Bombers and Bloody Sox. The NY Yankees saw their payroll soar to unchartered territory; leaping over the $200 million mark. The Red Sox, concerned about their image and what another Yankee dynasty could do to their morale, soared over $120 million. A monumental amount, but it would have to be money well spent to compete with the Evil Empire.

This is a problem, isn't it?

Hell no.

The Cardinals, White Sox, Marlins, and Diamondbacks have all won titles this century. The Rockies appeared in their first Series this past season with a payroll closer to the Marlins than Yankees.

Money does do one thing though. It gives you respectability. It shows your fans you appreciate what they pay to see your team. It shows the league you mean business, and it shows the players themselves that they play for something other than a greedy owner.

The Florida Marlins dealt away arguably their 2 best players, sans Hanley Ramirez. They got 2 studs in return (Maybin & Miller), but so what? Their payroll could be under $10 million this season. Nobody wants to go to Marlins games. They have disrespected Fredi Gonzalez, a young manager looking to make his mark. They are disrespecting the game.

There needs to be a salary floor. MLB must set up a minimum payroll to ensure that teams meet the minimal standards to field a competitive team. If they don't, numerous problems arise.

The NL East will arguably have just 4 teams: 3 good, 1 bad, and 1 irrelevant. That's not fair to the rest of the league.
The Marlins receive around $30 million in revenue sharing. And even IF they lose millions a year because of lack of revenue, costs, and payroll; its not $30 million. In this world it is common knowledge that you must spend money to MAKE money. Its called capitalism. Their poor revenues as per attendance are their own fault. The difference received in revenue sharing MUST be allocated to the team.
The potential to LOSE a team in the Florida market, a team that has won 2 titles in its short history.

I propose that Selig institutes a League-Average Rule. If the league's average salary is determined to be $2 million, then you must have AT LEAST 10 players that make the average, which would mean the minimum payroll is $20 million. You can spend $5 mill on one guy. You can spend $20 mill on one guy. No matter. You must field a team that has Major Leaguers manning at least a few positions.

If you break it down, you can field at least a couple of position players and pitchers that have major league experience, and then fill the rest of the team with minor-leaguers. At least it gives you the chance to compete, not cheat the fans, and not cheat the other owners paying your operating costs. Otherwise the team becomes a joke. MLB does NOT like seeing empty ballparks. Imagine the attendance at a Marlins-Nationals game? It would probably be around 1,000 or so. This is a black eye for the league. Its been proven that money does not buy titles. So no ceiling is required. But money does buy respectability in this league. Don't cheat the fans. We pay enough as is. Its time for a salary floor.

Comments (3) Add A Comment

December 7, 2007 01:54 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

The Marlins are like a scam.

AllStarz

Total Comments (18993)

January 31, 2008 08:24 PM ET

You're wrong. A salary floor is bad business until they get true revenue sharing. But right now, you get no guarantees on REVENUE, so if you force a team like the Marlins to pay X number of dollars, and their media revenue is below that, then they have a BREAKEVEN POINT ABOVE THE SALARY FLOOR. They'd be guaranteed to lose money unless they drew a certain number of fans, AND EVEN 81 SELLOUTS might not be enough to break even.

Until you get true revenue sharing (WHICH BY THE WAY HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ THE MLBPA, ITS THE GREEDY OWNERS LIKE STEINBRENNER who don't want a level playing field), you'd have to make the salary floor so low it would be almost irrelevant.

But the worst thing you say is accusing owners of being greedy. The greediest owner in sports is STEINBRENNER, who rakes in untold millions cuz his team is in NY. You can't tell me he's spending his OWN MONEY, as you advocate the Pohlads and the KC's owner (Glass?) should be doing.

Sure he spends $200M on salary, but he brings in closer to $500M in revenue (and that is about 1/12 of all MLB revenues. Four yrs ago, MLB revenues totalled $3.5B, and NYY was responsible for over $400M. As MLB revenues have nearly doubled, I would suspect NYY's revenues to be at least $500, maybe as much as $700M. But as these owners don't disclose their books, you don't know how much Steinbrenner pockets any more than you do how much Pohlad does.

Steinbrenner may REDUCE his profit w/ his exorbitant spending, but he's not digging into his own pocket to sign ARod, Posada, and Rivera. Where do you think the money for his new stadium came from? His shipping business? Is he even still in the shipping business? I bet the baseball business lines his pockets more than ship building.

MixinUpMedicine

Saint Paul , MN

Total Comments (631)

January 31, 2008 08:41 PM ET

Sorry, it was 6 yrs ago that MLB revenue was $3.5B and the yankees earned $242M. I read recently they earned over $400M.

That's still 6.7% of MLB revenue, meaning the other 29 MLB teams fight for the remaining 93%, or about 3.2% per team, half what the Yankees make. And obviously, the Royals aren't making the same $$ that the Red Sox are making.

"Money does do one thing though. It gives you respectability. It shows your fans you appreciate what they pay to see your team" - So does your wife/girl respect you when you don't buy her a 5 carat diamond ring? Does she call you greedy? Or maybe you're divorced/alone cuz you don't show you appreciate your girl enough because you chose to live within your means, like the KCs and MINs and OAKs do.

Not fair is it.

Imagine keeping up w/ the Joneses when the Joneses make 2 or 3 times what you make.