Debating pro/cons of installing salary cab for MLB

[Flooder]

That was before the big dollars. Look at what transpired when the dollar exploded in MLB.

Doesn't matter. He was spending more than anybody else and signing all the big names (Rickie Henderson, Dave Winfield, etc.) and couldn't win. Money didn't help him.

The payroll exploding had nothing to do with the Yankees resurgence from the dead. 1996, Posada, Rivera, Petite and Jeter all come up to the bigs and make major contributions while on low-budget contracts as young players. Bernie Williams had come up a couple years earlier. Their farm system saved them.

Money IS an advantage and I'm for a cap, but there's plenty of evidence that spending the most doesn't equal success.

 

[JB]

Doesn't matter. He was spending more than anybody else and signing all the big names (Rickie Henderson, Dave Winfield, etc.) and couldn't win. Money didn't help him.

The payroll exploding had nothing to do with the Yankees resurgence from the dead. 1996, Posada, Rivera, Petite and Jeter all come up to the bigs and make major contributions while on low-budget contracts as young players. Bernie Williams had come up a couple years earlier. Their farm system saved them.

Money IS an advantage and I'm for a cap, but there's plenty of evidence that spending the most doesn't equal success.

It certainly does matter. That is quite short sided because back in the 80s, all the teams could afford top talent because of where players contracts were. In todays market that is simply not the case. When big "ticket items" are available in free agency, half the teams are eliminated from being able to sign them immediately. That was not the case 30 years ago. Not even close actually.

And nobody has ever said in here that spending equals success.

 

[blugold]

Money IS an advantage and I'm for a cap, but there's plenty of evidence that spending the most doesn't equal success.

It sure does help. The advantage isn't just that NY can lure a big name free agent. The biggest advantage is what happens when that big name turns out to be a dud. Like AJ Burnett, Carl Pavano, Jason Giambi. They can absorb that bad deal a lot easier than the Twins can with Mauer's awful contract.

 

[GamecockGolfer]

It sure does help. The advantage isn't just that NY can lure a big name free agent. The biggest advantage is what happens when that big name turns out to be a dud. Like AJ Burnett, Carl Pavano, Jason Giambi. They can absorb that bad deal a lot easier than the Twins can with Mauer's awful contract.

I didn't realize paying the best catcher in the league money he deserves was a bad thing. I've even slowly gotten over the Howard deal because he's not being paid to win us ball games, he's being paid to put fans in the seats through HR, RBI, etc, all things which the average fan goes to a game for.

 

[Flooder]

It certainly does matter. That is quite short sided because back in the 80s, all the teams could afford top talent because of where players contracts were. In todays market that is simply not the case. When big "ticket items" are available in free agency, half the teams are eliminated from being able to sign them immediately. That was not the case 30 years ago. Not even close actually.

And nobody has ever said in here that spending equals success.

The argument is for a cap because the teams spending the most have an unfair advantage. He was spending the most (by far) and had no advantage. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Redman]

Just for fun I took the team salaries for each team (http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/salaries/_/name/stl/st-louis-cardinals), calculated the Median, and determined the Ceiling and Floor to be 10% of the median.

Median $86,250,263

Ceiling $94,875,289

Floor $77,625,236

I don't know what would be a bigger problem, cut your payroll in half or double your payroll ....

BTW -- I have no information for determining the Ceiling and Floor. It's just playing w/ #'s folks.

 

[JB]

The argument is for a cap because the teams spending the most have an unfair advantage. He was spending the most (by far) and had no advantage. That's all I'm saying.

Different eras. Cannot be compared because the salary structure was different.
Right now those that spend more have an inherent advantage. Does that create more wins? Not always, but is there an advantage, absolutely!

Lets face it, if there was no advantage to spending more, teams wouldnt do it.

 

[ddec]

opcorn:

 

[Mardin]

Money spent doesn't always equal a great profit. This is obvious in numerous players and even teams across the league. Sure, revenue sharing is something that is not really working that well but it's better than no revenue sharing at all. The reason that a salary cap won't work is that the MLB Players Union is the strongest sports union out of all major sports. The players will not stand for it because it means less potential to make money. I think it's ludicrous how much money mediocre players make in baseball, but parody can not be created with a cap.

 

[yorkem]

Just for fun I took the team salaries for each team (http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/salaries/_/name/stl/st-louis-cardinals), calculated the Median, and determined the Ceiling and Floor to be 10% of the median.

Median $86,250,263

Ceiling $94,875,289

Floor $77,625,236

I don't know what would be a bigger problem, cut your payroll in half or double your payroll ....

I don't think they could immediately cut payrolls, because unlike the NFL, MLB contracts are guaranteed, so teams would have to find trades to unload salary. Lets just say your numbers are correct, and the Yankees say...ok, we'll unload A-Rod and his contract. Well no team that is forced to add 30 million in payroll is going to do it by adding just one player, so that is not going to work either. So I would say adding to it would be easier, but finding a way to pay those higher salaries is another question altogether.

 

[Mardin]

I don't think they could immediately cut payrolls, because unlike the NFL, MLB contracts are guaranteed, so teams would have to find trades to unload salary. Lets just say your numbers are correct, and the Yankees say...ok, we'll unload A-Rod and his contract. Well no team that is forced to add 30 million in payroll is going to do it by adding just one player, so that is not going to work either. So I would say adding to it would be easier, but finding a way to pay those higher salaries is another question altogether.

The cap wouldn't happen all in one year it would have to be implemented over a 3-5 year period. All contracts would still be guaranteed but they would have to grandfather players who signed long term deals.

On another note, going along with your A-Rod analogy; could you imagine how many players the Yankees and Red Sox would have to drop/trade to meet the cap.

 

[yorkem]

The cap wouldn't happen all in one year it would have to be implemented over a 3-5 year period. All contracts would still be guaranteed but they would have to grandfather players who signed long term deals.

On another note, going along with your A-Rod analogy; could you imagine how many players the Yankees and Red Sox would have to drop/trade to meet the cap.

Exactly, and the Phillies too. No way they could keep that ptiching staff together.

 

[blugold]

I didn't realize paying the best catcher in the league money he deserves was a bad thing. I.

How has that deal worked out for the Twins this year? How many games has Mauer missed? If he stays at catcher,he will miss a lot more.

 

[Redman]

The cap wouldn't happen all in one year it would have to be implemented over a 3-5 year period. All contracts would still be guaranteed but they would have to grandfather players who signed long term deals.

On another note, going along with your A-Rod analogy; could you imagine how many players the Yankees and Red Sox would have to drop/trade to meet the cap.

Agreed some grace period would be needed before it could be fully implemented. However, it would be comical to watch KC and the Rays go out and spend like drunken sailors to make the floor.

 

[JB]

Agreed some grace period would be needed before it could be fully implemented. However, it would be comical to watch KC and the Rays go out and spend like drunken sailors to make the floor.

You think they want to spend nothing? Im not sure how long you have been a baseball fan, but take a look at the teams' history and their spending.
Getting payroll up 30 to 35 million would be a joy to quite a few teams. Cutting payroll 75 million would be like pulling teeth to others.

 

[Flooder]

You think they want to spend nothing? Im not sure how long you have been a baseball fan, but take a look at the teams' history and their spending.
Getting payroll up 30 to 35 million would be a joy to quite a few teams. Cutting payroll 75 million would be like pulling teeth to others.

:confused2: You've got some interesting economic theories, JB. Spending the most money now is an unfair advantage but spending the most money in the past wasn't. Teams that don't have two nickels to rub together are going to be thrilled to spend $30-35 million more per season. :confused2:

 

[JB]

:confused2: You've got some interesting economic theories, JB. Spending the most money now is an unfair advantage but spending the most money in the past wasn't. Teams that don't have two nickels to rub together are going to be thrilled to spend $30-35 million more per season. :confused2:

Clearly you are missing what I have posted. Spending more in the past, while it may have had advantages, was not the same as today. Players salaries were lower and all teams in MLB could afford top salaries in the early and mid 80s. Once salaries went to the levels they are today, half the league could not compete in any way to sign top talent, therefore purchasing players and their contracts at the highest level is only a playing field for half the league. Every single season there are top players available for free agency. Ever noticed how its the same 8 teams competing for them? I dont know if you followed baseball in the 80s and the contracts, but that is no where near what was happening then. Teams like KC, Oak and Pitt did not have the struggles until the late 80s/early 90s hit and salaries quadrupled over a very short span, thus eliminating them from being able to sign any talent at the highest level.

Again, missed the point on the signings and bringing up the floor. Not that they can spend 30-35 million more, but that how much of a joy it would be to be able to for teams in this situation. For a league to set a floor, they must make sure that all teams through assistance can meet said floor.

 

[blugold]

:confused2: You've got some interesting economic theories, JB. Spending the most money now is an unfair advantage but spending the most money in the past wasn't. Teams that don't have two nickels to rub together are going to be thrilled to spend $30-35 million more per season. :confused2:

I have a feeling that ifthere was a salary cap instituted, there would be a revenue sharing plan in place to allow for those teams to make the floor and approach the cap.

 

[JB]

I have a feeling that ifthere was a salary cap instituted, there would be a revenue sharing plan in place to allow for those teams to make the floor and approach the cap.

Ding ding ding. MLB cannot control teams that have their own networks, so more network money and tv money is available for smaller markets from bigger to help control spending both coming up and going down. Its not rocket science here, but apparently Flooder sees that as crazy.

 

[Hanks]

this is the funniest thing I've read all day. sounds an awful lot like being paid to win games to me....

fans come because of winning....how does winning happen?...by putting up more of these stats than the other team.......pretty simple to me. and don't think for a second that fans just want to go watch a player do well only to have their team lose. fans want to see wins first and foremost. otherwise no one would show up.

I didn't realize paying the best catcher in the league money he deserves was a bad thing. I've even slowly gotten over the Howard deal because he's not being paid to win us ball games, he's being paid to put fans in the seats through HR, RBI, etc, all things which the average fan goes to a game for.

 

[Flooder]

Ding ding ding. MLB cannot control teams that have their own networks, so more network money and tv money is available for smaller markets from bigger to help control spending both coming up and going down. Its not rocket science here, but apparently Flooder sees that as crazy.

Oh, brother. I'm out.

 

[StLCardsFan]

I have a feeling that ifthere was a salary cap instituted, there would be a revenue sharing plan in place to allow for those teams to make the floor and approach the cap.

That is the problem with a salary cap in baseball. So much of the individual revenue is not coming from a sharing plan. The teams are free to make (and spend) as much as they can. If you want a cap and floor, then each team has to have the minimum earning power to support either. Baseball is such a day-to-day, localized game, I think it will be very hard to convince owners who make 5-10 times more than another owner, to share the money from their individual markets to give every team an equal stake.

30-40 years ago when baseball was king, there were probably little to no TV deals. Each team made what they could from the stadium, gate, local radio, and advertising. There couldn't have been much difference in what teams made overall. Now, with local TV, cable TV, radio, internet, luxury boxes, advertising, sponsorships, etc. it creates a huge separation that I doubt will ever get back to equal. Teams can make as much as they want, and not have to share it with anyone.

And to those that are talking about Pujols and the contracts coming off the books, Carpenter has an option which probably won't get picked up, but maybe redone for less money if he wants to stay. Berkman was on a one-year deal. Westbrook is on at least a two year deal, and maybe three, this being the first year so his salary will be there next year. Without looking it up I'm not sure if it is 2 or 3, but he will be around in 2012 regardless.

 

[Smallville]

Doesn't matter. He was spending more than anybody else and signing all the big names (Rickie Henderson, Dave Winfield, etc.) and couldn't win. Money didn't help him.

The payroll exploding had nothing to do with the Yankees resurgence from the dead. 1996, Posada, Rivera, Petite and Jeter all come up to the bigs and make major contributions while on low-budget contracts as young players. Bernie Williams had come up a couple years earlier. Their farm system saved them.

Money IS an advantage and I'm for a cap, but there's plenty of evidence that spending the most doesn't equal success.

It's funny how often you hear this. But what the money fans don't say after is that they were able to afford to pay them the big money when the time came and KEEP them. Kansas City had Carlos Beltran, Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye in 2000. But when it was close to time to pay them the big bucks, they had to let them go. THAT is the difference right there. They did sign Mike Sweeney to a big deal but he didn't make a winner out of the team.

 

[Hanks]

Great point Smalls!

It's funny how often you hear this. But what the money fans don't say after is that they were able to afford to pay them the big money when the time came and KEEP them. Kansas City had Carlos Beltran, Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye in 2000. But when it was close to time to pay them the big bucks, they had to let them go. THAT is the difference right there. They did sign Mike Sweeney to a big deal but he didn't make a winner out of the team.

 

[ddec]

It's funny how often you hear this. But what the money fans don't say after is that they were able to afford to pay them the big money when the time came and KEEP them. Kansas City had Carlos Beltran, Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye in 2000. But when it was close to time to pay them the big bucks, they had to let them go. THAT is the difference right there. They did sign Mike Sweeney to a big deal but he didn't make a winner out of the team.

I guess that is something good that has happened with the revenue sharing now. You see more teams able to buy out players arbitration years so that they aren't looking at huge numbers out of the blue.