Views
261
Comments
19
  • November 06, 2009 06:42 PM ET

Baseball needs a salary cap...

cjohnston (1-1-0) vs Godzilla!!! (3-0-0)
9
Votes
11
Votes
9
Votes
11
Votes


It's time that MLB considered establishing a salary cap. Lower market teams are no longer able to compete with teams that are able to spend big bucks. Establishing a salary cap will be better for the league. It will level the playing field and make the qaulity of teams better.


Baseball does not NEED a salary cap. Sure, the large market teams TRY to bully the smaller market teams and BUY World Series', but it doesn't always happen.

Case in point, the New York Yankees. Yes, they finally put it together and won this year, but their payroll has been the highest in Baseball for YEARS, and did they win last year?

Um, no.

The year before?

The year before that?

How about the year before that?

Or the year before that?

In fact, the New York Yankees had not even PARTICIPATED in a World Series since 2003, and had not won one since 2000, while the entire time having the highest payroll in all of Baseball.

Last year, the Tampa Bay Rays represented the American League in the World Series, with a payroll of ONLY $44 million! The Yankees payroll in 2008 was a whopping $209 Million!

Yes, money helps. But it does not BUY championships.

Good management, good scouting, good team chemistry, AND good players are how championships are won. It is not simply a matter of money.


We all know the Yankees won 2 WS titles in the 21st century. But they have led MLB in payroll each year and missed the playoffs once, while making the WS 4X in 9 yrs. Over 9 years only twice have two teams outside the top ten in payroll failed to make the world series.

2000- NYY(1) def. NYM(5)
2001- ARI(8) def. NYY(1)
2002- ANA(15) def. SF(10)
2003- FLA(26) def. NYY(1)
2004- BOS(2) def. STL(11)
2005- CWS(9) def. HOU(12)
2006- STL(11) def. DET(14)
2007- BOS(2) def. COL(26)
2008- PHI(13) def. TB(29)
2009- NYY(1) def. PHI(7)

Money doesn't buy championships? Are you kidding me? Money does buy good players. This year 5 of the 8 teams that made the playoffs were in the top 10 in payroll. The top 10 in payroll had well over 30 all stars while the bottom ten had only 21. What will happen to these all stars? FLA, SD, etc can't build around their young stars because they don't have the payroll and can't compete with NYY and BOS in free agency. Which is more exciting? Watching the Twins(24th in payroll) run for the playoffs, or the Red Sox (4th in payroll) stumble to the playoffs?


You are making my point for me with your last arguement. If it was simply all about money, it would be #1 vs #2 in every world series, every year.

As far as that goes, there has not been a single time (in the past 10 years spelled out in your arguement) that #1 has met #2. In fact, there has ONLY been one time that both of the teams were in the top 5!

We have had a winner at #26 (Florida in 2003), a winner at #15 (Anaheim in 2002), a winner at #13 (Philly in 2008), and a winner at #11 (St Louis in 2006). We have had teams at #29 (Tampa in 2008) MAKE it to the Series, by going THROUGH NYY, BOS, et al. We have had a participant ranked 26th (Colorado in 2007), and another ranked 14th (Detroit in 2006), all THREE of these in the last 4 years!

In the last 5 years numbers one and two have COMBINED for only TWO of the TEN total participant spots in the series. That means that 80% of the time, the top two get KNOCKED OUT!

How exactly are they "buying" the series, then?

Yes, money helps. But Money is not the ONLY answer to the Art form that is Baseball!


I think you have it mixed up pal, only 3x in the past 10 yrs. have teams outside the top 10 in payroll made it to the series. Half of them were in the top 5. What does this mean? Teams no longer focus on scouting and rebuilding there team through the draft, they focus on free agency. A salary cap is necessary to level the playing field, this way teams can compete with the "BIG DOGS". Anyone remember the Expos? They had Pedro, and Vlad. They lost them to either by trade or FA because they could no longer afford them. KC had J Damon and Carlos Beltran, and the same thing happened to them. We talk about how the below average teams don't care, look at the players they have had over the years and where they are playing now. They tried but couldn't afford them. If a salary cap was established we could see lower market teams compete in divisions and in the playoffs. This would make for better baseball...


The problem with your arguement is that there is a Luxury Tax ALREADY in Place, one that takes money from the teams that spend "too much", and spreads that money around to those that have smaller payrolls. Sounds very Robin Hood, or Karl Marx to me--can't quite figure out which.

Many of the small market teams do NOT spend the money that is given to them by the league to bolster their teams, they simply put it in their pocket and KEEP IT! What is the point of giving them money in the name of competitive balance, if they will not USE it for competitive balance, hmmm?

Another thing--If you implement a salary cap, you will HAVE to implement REVENUE SHARING. Otherwise, if the cap is, say $200 million, Steinbrenner will continue to make MILLIONS, while other smaller market teams will not MAKE enough to even REACH the cap.

And you CAN'T set it lower than any team's current payroll--they have signed contractual obligations that, if MLB would not allow them to meet, would cause lawsuits.

And, Steinbrenner and the other big guns will NEVER agree to revenue sharing.

NEVER.

So, there will NEVER be a salary cap. As long as the Yankees exist.

Sorry about that, folks.

Comments (19) Add A Comment

November 6, 2009  06:44 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

They don't need, it could help in parity, but it isn't needed. Also, with the big clubs spending all that money, they are more likely going to get to the World Series, and when they get to the World Series, the league makes more money because more people will watch a Yankee/Phillies series than a Blue Jay/Royal series.

November 6, 2009  07:09 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

A salary floor would do more to level the playing field.

November 6, 2009  07:43 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

There is a cap in MLB. It's whatever the Yankees are spending.

November 6, 2009  07:48 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

From CNN Money.com:

The Bronx Bombers have had the highest payroll among all Major League teams since 1999, but they had no championship rings to show for it from 2001 to 2008. The team even embarrassingly missed the playoffs in the 2008 season despite strutting the highest payroll in baseball history.

During that eight-season stretch, the Yankees shelled out about $1.7 billion for their players' salaries, including $148 million in luxury taxes that the team had to pay for sporting such a high payroll

November 6, 2009  07:51 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#3):
Originally posted 07:43 PM ET  11.06 by LocNar

There is a cap in MLB. It's whatever the Yankees are spending.

It is actually lower than that. The Yankees and a couple of other big spending teams pay a "Luxury Tax" when their payrolls exceed a certain level, and the "tax" collected is spread among the smaller market teams to help them raise their payrolls. The problem is, some of the smaller market teams do not use that money to increase their payrolls, they just stick it in their pockets.

If they do not spend it on players to help improve the "competitive balance", what is the point of giving it to them?

November 6, 2009  08:00 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

A salary cap would do more to hurt the game of baseball than help it.

November 6, 2009  08:01 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

There is more parity in baseball than there is in any other sport.

November 6, 2009  08:01 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#6):
Originally posted 08:00 PM ET  11.06 by TMZ41486

A salary cap would do more to hurt the game of baseball than help it.

i dont know if i would go that far. yes there are some negatives, but i dont know if it would "hurt" the league. getting fans from Pittsburgh, et. al. to care wouldnt be a bad thing.

November 6, 2009  08:28 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

World Series Participants in the last 10 years:

2000 New York Yankees AL 4???1 New York Mets NL
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks NL 4???3 New York Yankees AL
2002 Anaheim Angels AL 4???3 San Francisco Giants NL
2003 Florida Marlins NL 4???2 New York YankeesAL
2004 Boston Red Sox AL 4???0 St. Louis Cardinals NL
2005 Chicago White Sox AL 4???0 Houston Astros NL
2006 St. Louis Cardinals NL 4???1 Detroit Tigers AL
2007 Boston Red Sox AL 4???0 Colorado Rockies NL
2008 Philadelphia Phillies NL 4???1 Tampa Bay Rays AL
2009 New York Yankees AL 4???2 Philadelphia Phillies NL

Looks like the wealth, and the titles, have been pretty well spread around, doesn't it? And if you go back just a couple more years, you even have the tiny market San Diego Padres in a World Series (1998). So, I agree with TMZ41486--there is plenty of Parity in Baseball now, and a salary cap would probably hurt baseball more than it would help it.

Baseball is not a science you can just throw money at and be successful.

Baseball is an Art.

November 6, 2009  08:33 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Like Hockey, there needs to be a salary cap, and a minimum teams must spend on players.

November 6, 2009  09:02 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

The Yankees haven't made the playoffs all these years because of home grown talent, they did it by spending money on free agents. Show me another team(besides Boston) that can spend that much money year after year. They can't, that's why baseball needs a salary cap.

November 6, 2009  09:30 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

The yankees pay the luxury tax. They contribute a little to revenue sharing. Who cares what they spend.

November 6, 2009  09:43 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

They need a cap.

Just a note: The Yankees do not 'outspend' everyone- if they spend $200 mil it's because they take in well over $300 mil or whatever global revenues. Toronto for example could go out & spend $180 mil, but since they don't make $200 mil in return, they choose not to.

Unless similar contracts are available for offer from each single team in the entire league, the entire league will never ever be (potentially) competitively balanced.

November 6, 2009  09:50 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Good Throwdown. Left and Right both make very good arguments, IMO. It's a complex subject. I think the salary cap has been a boon to the NFL, on balance. However, in MLB it does seem we get a different world champ to the point where so many clubs have won the WS once in say, the last ten seasons. I really thought the Phils would repeat. Next season will be interesting, seeing if the NYY can turn the trick. It must be crappy playing for Steinbrenner. Granted, he pays well. Then again, you're in the media capitol of the world, and any subpar play is trumpeted to death, and The Boss wigs out on you if you don't Win It All every season.

November 6, 2009  09:52 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

you need a slary cap

November 6, 2009  10:07 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#14):
Originally posted 09:50 PM ET  11.06 by Spartan68

Good Throwdown. Left and Right both make very good arguments, IMO. It's a complex subject. I think the salary cap has been a boon to the NFL, on balance. However, in MLB it does seem we get a different world champ to the point where so many clubs have won the WS once in say, the last ten seasons. I really thought the Phils would repeat. Next season will be interesting, seeing if the NYY can turn the trick. It must be crappy playing for Steinbrenner. Granted, he pays well. Then again, you're in the media capitol of the world, and any subpar play is trumpeted to death, and The Boss wigs out on you if you don't Win It All every season.

The biggest reason that a salary cap works in the NFL is because they also have revenue sharing. If there is no revenue sharing, a salary cap cannot work. If the income is not equal, forcing teams to spend equal amounts will either cause small teams to overspend to the point where they are not financially solvent, or it will cause large market teams to not be able to meet current contractual obligations. Example: The salary cap is instituted at $150 million: Many teams simply cannot afford to spend $150 million, they would go bankrupt. However, the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs and Mets probably already have contracts for next year's players that EXCEED $150 million. Would you tell them that they have to void those legal contracts?

If so, the players that signed those contracts could sue. They would sue MLB, as it is MLB that is instituting the salary cap.

The salary cap works in the NFL, because in the NFL, the teams SHARE just about EVERYTHING (except luxury boxes, which is why every team wants to build a new stadium with TONS of them). Can you possibly IMAGINE George Steinbrenner being the LEAST bit willing to share the MILLIONS he brings in from the Yankees television network?

Not it this lifetime.

No revenue sharing, no way a salary cap works.

Period.

November 6, 2009  10:10 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Oops! I'm losing by one, and I gave up a point when I accidentally clicked on myself twice!

Doh!

November 7, 2009  10:13 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#2):
Originally posted 07:09 PM ET  11.06 by wtnelson = Big Chief

A salary floor would do more to level the playing field.

True. The Pirates Just pocket the money they receive. They turn a profit off luxury tax and MLB revenue sharing. All ticket and concession revenue goes in ownerships pocket.

 
November 7, 2009  07:15 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

I want the owner of my team to be able to go get the best players. That reason alone is why I am not in favor of one for MLB.

If MLB went to the same revenue sharing platform that the NFL has, I might reconsider. But the Yankees & Red Sox will NEVER agree to that. So - leave it be.

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 190 19 4 90.1%
3 FoosBall 118 12 3 89.8%
4 [The] Coach 130 21 7 84.5%
5 Southern Discomfort 42 7 3 83.7%
6 Argos: Lets Go Packers! 48 8 4 83.3%
7 BBK - Now it's all football 51 9 6 81.8%
8 BSchwar... 128 27 6 81.4%
9 BobbyOr... 45 10 3 80.2%
10 rstowe 315 79 20 78.5%

The Si.com Cover Hub Go to the Cover Hub

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Cowher to Bears or Texans?
    Views
    58812
    Comments
    3051
  2. 2
    Yankees to cut down on spending
    Views
    6693
    Comments
    1159
  3. 3
    Disrespected Ryan takes dig at Moss
    Views
    9628
    Comments
    708
  4. 4
    Sources: Clausen punched outside bar
    Views
    21849
    Comments
    225
  5. 5
    D'Antoni still mad at Robinson
    Views
    5990
    Comments
    207

Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
    Chico 2.0
  2. 2
    BBK - Now it's all football
  3. 3
    rstowe
  4. 4
    gigi_iv
  5. 5
    Never NDing Struggle

Message Boards

  1. NCAAF > General NCAAF

    Longhorns vs. Aggies…
    Views
    285
    Replies
    58

  2. NFL > Cleveland Browns

    Cleveland Fail: Lions dump a…
    Views
    152
    Replies
    26

  3. NFL > Chicago Bears

    3rd Down...Can't get off the…
    Views
    110
    Replies
    18

Blogs