Views
371
Comments
222
  • November 04, 2009 09:53 AM ET

MLB needs a salary cap.

Asheck (1-1-0) vs BBK - Now it's all football (51-9-6)
4
Votes
24
Votes
4
Votes
24
Votes


Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I think it would kill the sport for me. College football and MLB. Those are the two sports I follow closest because they aren't fair. Give me unfair advantages any day. I'd rather watch a juggernaut team then a bunch of evenly matched ones. That's boring, to me.

And whenever there's a salary cap, there exists special rules so that no team can bypass the cap or so that every team can bypass the cap but only under certain conditions. Does anyone really understand the NBA rules for a cap? In order to trade players in the NBA...you have to receive contracts that are within ten percent of the outgoing contracts. If you're over the cap. Which, like, every single team is. So trades are basically ridiculous. They're all about the money and making sure that the accounts are equal. Why is that a good system? Teams carry players with big salaries so they can trade for other big salaried players. Expiring contracts in the NBA are a good thing! In baseball, that means you trade the guy, not hold onto him. NBA teams trade for players that they will lose control of! On purpose!


You actually think that "unfair advantages" are good for sports? Please explain to me how having a juggernaut with a 200+ million dollar payroll, beating up on teams with sub 50 million dollar payrolls is good for sports?

Let me get his out of the way first. I don't blame the Yankees for what they've chosen to do with their money. I blame baseball for allowing it to happen.

The difference in baseball team salaries from top to bottom is far and away the largest gap in any major American sport. the difference from 1 to 32 is 165 million, which is more than every team in baseball spends, sans one. The primary problem with this difference is free agency, and the ridiculous levels that player salaries have risen to. Whether you blame Scott Boras etc., the players union, or owners for giving the money the problem still remains that salaries for top free agents are out of reach for all but a select few.

This is what destroys competition. If a top players can only realistically go to one of maybe 5 teams, that leaves 27 with no other way to compete but to develop talent, and win before their contract comes up. The ability to compete continually is almost non existent.


Dynasties are good for sports. And to get dynasties...you have to let teams take advantage of their resources. EG: The Twins are good at scouting. So good, in fact, that they develop the best players in the game (Santana, Mauer, Morneau, Nathan). Because this is an advantage for them, should we take it away? So that the playing field is level for all the other teams? No we should not. Money and large fan bases is a resource that we shouldn't take away from a team.

A dynasty gives you something to root for or against. Duke baskebtall. Notre Dame football. Yankee baseball. If the Yankees are in the playoffs, if Notre Dame is in a BCS game, if Duke is in the Final Four...you watch. You have something invested. You probably hate those teams and that's fair. But that's good for the sport--invested fans.

A few things about baseball:

Service rules in baseball are much different than in football or basketball and young players are so much cheaper that a good drafting team can still sign free agents, even expensive ones.

In what other sport can teams compete continually? NFL: Lions, Bills, Bengals. NBA: Clips, T-Wolves, Grizzlies. um...I don't follow hockey


You're right, the Twins are very good at developing players, but where is Santana playing? Or Tori Hunter? How would a cap hurt a team that develops talent? It would allow the Twins to keep Santana instead of being forced to trade him. Where will Mauer be playing in the next few years? Teams that develop talent would be the greatest beneficiaries of cap, not the other way around. To imply that putting in a cap is the equivalent of taking players away from teams that develop well is absurd.

So dynasties are good for sports? That's debateable. I can understand the need for the villain, but do you actually think that more Royals, or Pirates fans tune in because the hated Yanks are playing, than would tune in if their teams could actually compete? Of course not. The Yankees are arguably the biggest name in sports, and their villain status would not change with a cap. The 26 titles ensures that.

A salary floor is just as important as a salary cap, and the high payrolls are simply one facet of the issue, but make no mistake about it, they are bad for competitive balance. Between low team salaries, high team salaries, and out of control contracts, MLB has an unsustainable model.


Clearly, its not unsustainable as its been successful for decades. My point about the Twins was their advantage was player development/scouting. The Yankee's advantage is a huge revenue stream. What's the difference between those advantages? If used correctly, both will lead to prolonged success.

I bring up the twins, marlins, athletics, padres, rockies, rays show that payroll, while important, is not the only thing that can lead to success. Look at the ChiSox, the Mariners etc. Money does not guarantee success.

Also, the Yankee villain status would definitely change. We could no longer point to them and say, yeah, that's what $200 mil gets you.

In the NFL the spread between the salary floor and cap is something like $8 mil. Every team has the same payroll. Tennessee Titans for you: Last year, dominant. This year, with pretty much the same team, terrible. When the system seems rigged just so that everyone gets a shot, does that not take away from your enjoyment of the game?

Teams can compete with revenue sharing. The Royals and Pirates? Poorly managed http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/ Every team in the NFL is the same, run the same way. Not so in MLB because they can't


sustainable for decades?

This is the first decade in which the disparity in spending has even approached the current level, and shockingly one team has made the playoffs every year but one...the Yankees.

the difference in the two approaches is that one is basically tantamount to cheating, and the other is the intelligent running of a franchise. Drafting and developing players, only to have them taken away when their rookie contract expires is not an advantage. It's taking away any chance of being able to compete consistently.

The NFL is currently crushing the MLB in every aspect of success, so yes I would say that the system in place for them is quite effective...and no, it doesn't take away from any enjoyment of the game.

Once again, there are 8 playoff spots, and Yanks can't get all 8. The fact that other teams rotate in and out of those other 7 spots doesn't in anyway diminish the fact that one team is always present, or show that having a lower payroll doesn't negatively effect competition.

A floor, and a cap are both needed, or baseball will become unwatchable....I almost hope the Yanks keep winning just to force the change that MLB needs.

Comments (223) Add A Comment

November 4, 2009  09:55 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Tough to say yes because Tampa Bay seems to be doing just fine without spending ridiculous amounts of money.

November 4, 2009  10:24 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#1):
Originally posted 09:55 AM ET  11.04 by BigBen7: Boobs are Great

Tough to say yes because Tampa Bay seems to be doing just fine without spending ridiculous amounts of money.

Really? They missed the playoffs this year to two teams who dwarf their payroll.

November 4, 2009  10:33 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#1):
Originally posted 09:55 AM ET  11.04 by BigBen7: Boobs are Great

Tough to say yes because Tampa Bay seems to be doing just fine without spending ridiculous amounts of money.

this point is one that consistently bothers me...there are 8 playoff spots, and there aren't 8 teams that spend crazy money, so this is really just a numbers game. Of course you will get teams with lower payrolls in the playoffs, but you won't get that same team consistently, and therein lies the problem. The teams that can't afford to either resign their own, or go after available talent have no chance of sustainablility...the real measure is playoff appearances, because the game is too unpredictable in a series to actually say that because team A won a 7 games series, they're better...the truer measure is the results of 162 games....looking at that, who has more playoff appearances than anyone this decade.....1. Yankees 2. Red Sox

November 4, 2009  10:41 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

I don't really know how these throw downs work but I am a baseball stats nut. And the rays weren't as good this year as last year. They probably would have won the AL central but, then again, who wouldn't have?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2009-standings.shtml

look at the pyth win loss (which measures the projected wins and losses based on runs scored vs runs allowed). Not all that great. Good, but not playoff good.

That's not really the point that the rays shouldn't have made the playoffs this year. The real point is that they were competitive with a tiny payroll. And there are plenty of examples of small payrolled teams succeeding: Oakland of moneyball fame, Minnesota, Florida, San Diego, even Colorado has a middling payroll.

November 4, 2009  10:45 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#1):
Originally posted 09:55 AM ET  11.04 by BigBen7: Boobs are Great

Tough to say yes because Tampa Bay seems to be doing just fine without spending ridiculous amounts of money.

The Twins have been very good in the past while doing that, too. Marlins as well.

November 4, 2009  10:46 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

If that were the case then how do you explain the Rays, Phillies Angels etc. all getting to the series?

November 4, 2009  10:48 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Very easy vote right.

Left's complaints about salary cap complexity ring hollow when the NHL is examined... it is as straightforward as possible for such a major contract.

November 4, 2009  10:49 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

With the system as is now, the Yankees will ALWAYS have the talent for a winning team and will ALWAYS be setup going into the season to win it all. That is not even close to being true for a lot of the teams . At the beginning of every year, teams try to find a way to beat the Yankees first, every other team second.

November 4, 2009  10:52 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#6):
Originally posted 10:46 AM ET  11.04 by CajunSuperman9

If that were the case then how do you explain the Rays, Phillies Angels etc. all getting to the series?

the Angels and Phils both spend 113+ million...and the Rays are quite predictably the result of being at the top of the draft for a decade....that being said, mentions of the Marlins, Twins etc. really do miss the point. There will always be outliers to the rule, but that doesn't change the rule...The fact that some teams spend money poorly, or some spend it wisely doesn't negate the simple truth that being able to sign free agents, and retain your own talent greatly increases a teams chances of winning....like I said above, 8 playoff spots. Only 1 Yankees

November 4, 2009  10:53 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Easy vote left. The whiney crys of the fans will once again go unanswered. The boo hoo hooing of the fans of teams that refuse to be competitive and blame the money resonates well, but it is a crutch and nothing else. Scouting and player development...do it. Fans don't really care about fairness and competitiveness, they want their team to win and they have been told, incorrectly that this is why they can't win.
Regardless there will not be a cap in Baseball, thankfully, as it would reduce most teams actual profits, the Yankee management, in a bitter twist of fate, would make money hand over fist with a cap. More inportantly the league would make less money with a cap, thus...no cap, regardless of what so many "small market teams" want to sell you.

November 4, 2009  10:59 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#9):
Originally posted 10:52 AM ET  11.04 by BBK - Now it's all football

the Angels and Phils both spend 113+ million...and the Rays are quite predictably the result of being at the top of the draft for a decade....that being said, mentions of the Marlins, Twins etc. really do miss the point. There will always be outliers to the rule, but that doesn't change the rule...The fact that some teams spend money poorly, or some spend it wisely doesn't negate the simple truth that being able to sign free agents, and retain your own talent greatly increases a teams chances of winning....like I said above, 8 playoff spots. Only 1 Yankees

Uh, correct answer would be scouting and player development...

November 4, 2009  11:01 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

When 3 guys on your team make more than the entire payroll for another team, there is a problem. Apparently the owners are not willing to police themselves so a cap is necessary.

November 4, 2009  11:01 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#11):
Originally posted 10:59 AM ET  11.04 by AllStarz

Uh, correct answer would be scouting and player development...

good point. the Yanks must have sunk plenty of money into scouting and developing Giambi, Brown, Johnson, Pavano, Sabathia, Burnett, Texeria, Arod.....

I obviously don't expect you to agree with me on this, we've had this talk. I completely understand Yankee fans defending it, but I'm not attacking the Yankees...

November 4, 2009  11:02 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#8):
Originally posted 10:49 AM ET  11.04 by Rooster...time for a change

With the system as is now, the Yankees will ALWAYS have the talent for a winning team and will ALWAYS be setup going into the season to win it all. That is not even close to being true for a lot of the teams . At the beginning of every year, teams try to find a way to beat the Yankees first, every other team second.

You do realize that the current system that supposedly gives the Yankees an unfair advantage takes picks from them when they sign a free agent? That this reinforces the need to sign free agents.
And NL teams are trying to win their divisions, you can tell by the limited moves they need to make in the off season, that goes for Every team outside of the AL East actually, Every team but the Red Sox actually.

November 4, 2009  11:04 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#10):
Originally posted 10:53 AM ET  11.04 by AllStarz

Easy vote left. The whiney crys of the fans will once again go unanswered. The boo hoo hooing of the fans of teams that refuse to be competitive and blame the money resonates well, but it is a crutch and nothing else. Scouting and player development...do it. Fans don't really care about fairness and competitiveness, they want their team to win and they have been told, incorrectly that this is why they can't win.Regardless there will not be a cap in Baseball, thankfully, as it would reduce most teams actual profits, the Yankee management, in a bitter twist of fate, would make money hand over fist with a cap. More inportantly the league would make less money with a cap, thus...no cap, regardless of what so many "small market teams" want to sell you.

Says the homer Yankee fan. Yea, shocker that you of all people would be against a cap... easy to support a team that drops half a BILLION dollars on free agents in one offseason.

November 4, 2009  11:04 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

The baseline problem is that you have two schools of thought in producing a winning team in MLB.

1) Scouting and player development that has little room for error and must come through in a timely and accelerated rate, due to the fact that you will not be able to retain the players after a select amount of year. There is also a reliance on grabbing players missed by other franchises and expecting more out of a role player that you may be able to afford.

2) The same as one, except a more relaxed mode of player development and less need to grab the "missed" opportunities of other teams. This is replaced by being able to rely on the free agency period in the off-season. Generally, teams in #2 have a much larger room for error and can stay relatively competitive for longer.

While both systems work, if you honestly believe both systems are equal, then there is nothing that I can really say to sway you.

November 4, 2009  11:04 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#13):
Originally posted 11:01 AM ET  11.04 by BBK - Now it's all football

good point. the Yanks must have sunk plenty of money into scouting and developing Giambi, Brown, Johnson, Pavano, Sabathia, Burnett, Texeria, Arod.....I obviously don't expect you to agree with me on this, we've had this talk. I completely understand Yankee fans defending it, but I'm not attacking the Yankees...

We are only discussing the Yankees because they are the epitome of the argument.
And I would say the first three of those those were examples of poor scouting, but not just by the Yankees, those FAs were highly sought by many teams, CC, AJ, and TEx...long contracts we will have to wait to see just how those signings turn out when all is said and done.

November 4, 2009  11:05 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#15):
Originally posted 11:04 AM ET  11.04 by BobbyOrrsBastahd

Says the homer Yankee fan. Yea, shocker that you of all people would be against a cap... easy to support a team that drops half a BILLION dollars on free agents in one offseason.

You can lable me, but you have not made a valid objection.

November 4, 2009  11:07 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#15):
Originally posted 11:04 AM ET  11.04 by BobbyOrrsBastahd

Says the homer Yankee fan. Yea, shocker that you of all people would be against a cap... easy to support a team that drops half a BILLION dollars on free agents in one offseason.

And I know you know that that money is actual annualized over the next 6-8 years...sounds worse the way you put it though, typical.

 
November 4, 2009  11:08 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#17):
Originally posted 11:04 AM ET  11.04 by AllStarz

We are only discussing the Yankees because they are the epitome of the argument.And I would say the first three of those those were examples of poor scouting, but not just by the Yankees, those FAs were highly sought by many teams, CC, AJ, and TEx...long contracts we will have to wait to see just how those signings turn out when all is said and done.

I agree, they were examples of poor scouting, but of course the difference is that the Yankees had the funds to overcome such a poor investment, whereas almost every other team could not. You're holding every other franchise to a much higher standard than the Yanks...they can scout, and develop, but if they missed on players as badly as the Yanks have, they'd be ruined for years.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Leaderboard

  Fan W L T Win %
1 YODA 51 3 2 92.9%
2 Hyped78 189 19 4 90.1%
3 FoosBall 118 12 3 89.8%
4 [The] Coach 130 21 7 84.5%
5 Argos: Lets Go Packers! 46 7 4 84.2%
6 Southern Discomfort 42 7 3 83.7%
7 BBK - Now it's all football 51 9 6 81.8%
8 BSchwar... 128 27 6 81.4%
9 BobbyOr... 46 10 3 80.5%
10 rstowe 315 79 20 78.5%

The Si.com Cover Hub Go to the Cover Hub

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Bills owner wanted Gruden
    Views
    62759
    Comments
    393
  2. 2
    Parcells to Browns?
    Views
    39878
    Comments
    271
  3. 3
    FSU to offer Bowden compromise?
    Views
    5630
    Comments
    120
  4. 4
    Why Knicks passed on Iverson
    Views
    31941
    Comments
    112
  5. 5
    Raiders players happy with new QB
    Views
    12966
    Comments
    99

Message Boards

  1. NCAAF > General NCAAF

    2009's most disappointing team
    Views
    805
    Replies
    29

  2. NCAAF > LSU Tigers

    Les Miles FIRE HIM
    Views
    334
    Replies
    33

  3. NCAAF > General NCAAF

    Did Uga VII commit suicide?
    Views
    211
    Replies
    8

Blogs