Debating pro/cons of installing salary cab for MLB

Redman

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
467
Reaction score
2
Location
Massachusetts
Handicap
OOB 19
The question was posed in another thread about installing a salary cap. Where each team would each team would be required to spend league minimums (floor) and maximums (ceiling). The general idea is to stop the large market teams that are rolling in revenue from "buying" championships and to level the playing field and make the smaller markets more competitive.

While on a jog I got to thinking about the question and I was inspired to look this up on the internet and found some interesting articles on this topic -->

http://www.athbaseball.com/20100304206/2010-archives/march/mlb-salary-cap-debating-the-merits.html

http://www.benfry.com/salaryper/

IMO I would think it would be disastrous to install a salary cap. The teams that don't have a steady and diverse revenue stream would be forced into the brink of bankruptcy. The smaller market teams would spend so much on fielding the team that they wouldn't be able to attract the good scouts, coaches, etc ... The large markets would have a distinct advantage here and would be able to better identify prospects and pay for top notch managers. In the end, I think the large market teams would actually win more championships w/ a salary cap.
 
IMO I would think it would be disastrous to install a salary cap. The teams that don't have a steady and diverse revenue stream would be forced into the brink of bankruptcy. The smaller market teams would spend so much on fielding the team that they wouldn't be able to attract the good scouts, coaches, etc ... The large markets would have a distinct advantage here and would be able to better identify prospects and pay for top notch managers. In the end, I think the large market teams would actually win more championships w/ a salary cap.

Im going to go out on a limb and guess that you are a fan of a large market team. Because regardless of other reasons, the idea that smaller market teams could not attract high level scouts or coaches is both ludicrous and really has nothing to do with floors and caps. It is virtually no different than it is now.
 
Im going to go out on a limb and guess that you are a fan of a large market team. Because regardless of other reasons, the idea that smaller market teams could not attract high level scouts or coaches is both ludicrous and really has nothing to do with floors and caps. It is virtually no different than it is now.

I'm going to bet you're right. GO SOX!!!!
 
Fundamentally speaking, it’s easier to succeed when you are working with a payroll almost 6 times larger than a competitor and millions larger than your next competitor. A business that can afford to dish out nearly the payroll of a competitor to one individual inherently has an advantage on the rest of the market.

There is absolutely no argument against this. Sure wise decisions matter, and always will, but that does not change if there is a cap. More than half (70% or so) (finding the quote now) of MLB owners have requested a cap in the last 6 years.
 
Last edited:
I like it, because when small market teams win the series I lol

I tapatalk better then I golfatalk
 
Im going to go out on a limb and guess that you are a fan of a large market team. Because regardless of other reasons, the idea that smaller market teams could not attract high level scouts or coaches is both ludicrous and really has nothing to do with floors and caps. It is virtually no different than it is now.

Agreed that the big market teams are spending more money now Vs smaller markets but it could be a much bigger advantage with a cap.

I'm going to bet you're right. GO SOX!!!!

Actually, I'm M's fan living in New England. The M's are top third/top half in the league as far as spending goes.

Fundamentally speaking, it’s easier to succeed when you are working with a payroll almost 6 times larger than a competitor and millions larger than your next competitor. A business that can afford to dish out nearly the payroll of a competitor to one individual inherently has an advantage on the rest of the market.

There is absolutely no argument against this. Sure wise decisions matter, and always will, but that does not change if there is a cap. More than half (70% or so) (finding the quote now) of MLB owners have requested a cap in the last 6 years.

Agreed that teams having more revenue and outspending their competitor gives the team better chance to succeed. But, that does not necessarily translate into championships.
 
Agreed that the big market teams are spending more money now Vs smaller markets but it could be a much bigger advantage with a cap.




Agreed that teams having more revenue and outspending their competitor gives the team better chance to succeed. But, that does not necessarily translate into championships.

Please tell me how it is a bigger advantage with a cap? Because your argument about coaches and scouts is feeble in my opinion because the same translation is being made now. This goes against what virtually every expert on salaries has said in professional sports for the last 2 decades. It is the reason the NHL locked out. It is the reason the NBA will be locked out. It is also the reason that the NFL is king. Because teams like Green Bay and KC can be successful. It eliminates the garbage and lets the team that makes the smartest decisions win year after year. Hard caps are the only way to keep a level playing field across a competition. Both floor and ceiling.

Nobody has said it does. However when it comes to competition and sports, equal playing field should really be the way things should start no? I mean that bolded sentence you just typed says absolutely everything!!!!!!
 
So if your number are accuratJBm and I have no reason to doubt they are, and 70% of ownership wants a cap or a floor and cap then what is keeping it from happenning? The players? The agents? The union? I have said before I totally agree with a floor and a ceiling cap. I also stated someone on one of these threads I think all players should start each season with the same base salaries and then be paid more money based on performance. It'll never happen but it could be interesting and make the players earn their pay, like everyone else does.
 
So if your number are accuratJBm and I have no reason to doubt they are, and 70% of ownership wants a cap or a floor and cap then what is keeping it from happenning? The players? The agents? The union? I have said before I totally agree with a floor and a ceiling cap. I also stated someone on one of these threads I think all players should start each season with the same base salaries and then be paid more money based on performance. It'll never happen but it could be interesting and make the players earn their pay, like everyone else does.

There are 6 teams that are and always have been COMPLETELY against a cap (for obvious reasons).
The MLBPA is also completely against a cap. To the union, a cap means lower salaries because less total money might be spent. The MLBPA is being short sided here and a great columnist (Bob Ryan ironically from a large market) said something along the lines of, "Sure, 6-8 teams salaries will shrink overall by a pretty big number, but if 24 other teams increase salaries by 20-50 million, the total payroll spent will actually increase".
 
I'm all for the cap, bring it on.
 
Fundamentally speaking, it’s easier to succeed when you are working with a payroll almost 6 times larger than a competitor and millions larger than your next competitor. A business that can afford to dish out nearly the payroll of a competitor to one individual inherently has an advantage on the rest of the market.

There is absolutely no argument against this. Sure wise decisions matter, and always will, but that does not change if there is a cap. More than half (70% or so) (finding the quote now) of MLB owners have requested a cap in the last 6 years.

Unless your the NY Mets! Since 2000, they've been in the top 5 in payroll, a few years second only to the NY Yankees and have nothing but failure to show for it.
All for salary cap as it's leveled the playing field in the NFL and makes it more enjoyable to fans of all teams.
As the Mets continue to prove, payroll is only part of the equation... How you spend that money and manage the team also plays into it as well.
 
JB makes some really good points. As a diehard baseball fan of a somewhat mid-market team, the St. Louis Cardinals, I don't really have anything to complain about. They keep their payroll around $95-100 mil and get good players, but if the MLB was to institute a cap AND a floor baseball would be in a much better spot.

Teams would be forced to spend more money/get better players which makes baseball more competitive and why wouldnt everyone want that? Unless your a Yankees/Red Sox fan and enjoy the fact you can buy whoever it is that you want.
 
JB makes some really good points. As a diehard baseball fan of a somewhat mid-market team, the St. Louis Cardinals, I don't really have anything to complain about. They keep their payroll around $95-100 mil and get good players, but if the MLB was to institute a cap AND a floor baseball would be in a much better spot.

Teams would be forced to spend more money/get better players which makes baseball more competitive and why wouldnt everyone want that? Unless your a Yankees/Red Sox fan and enjoy the fact you can buy whoever it is that you want.

Cardinals have been spending quite a bit of money. They're around $130 million right now which puts them 6th in the league.

I'd love to see a ceiling and cap, but unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon.


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cardinals have been spending quite a bit of money. They're around $130 million right now which puts them 6th in the league.

---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd love to see a ceiling and cap, but unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon.


Confused as to where you are getting that stat? They are still under 100 million dollars and are 12th on the list of spending. This is updated through the Furcal trade so its not like this is an old statistic either.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/salaries/_/name/stl/st-louis-cardinals
 
Looking at that list is really disappointing.

Not sure why people are talking a cap and ceiling, but I am going to assume they mean floor and ceiling.

It certainly is smalls.
 
Not sure why people are talking a cap and ceiling, but I am going to assume they mean floor and ceiling.

It certainly is smalls.

Yes JB. I am sorry that is what I meant as the cap and ceiling would be the same thing haha.
 
If anybody thinks that a salary cap would hurt small market teams, the are missing the point. Baseball would benefit so much from a salary cap (and floor) it should be a no-brainer. Except MLB has a
Spoiler
hard-on
for their own history. MLB loves the old guard, Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals being successful.
 
If anybody thinks that a salary cap would hurt small market teams, the are missing the point. Baseball would benefit so much from a salary cap (and floor) it should be a no-brainer. Except MLB has a
Spoiler
hard-on
for their own history. MLB loves the old guard, Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals being successful.

Absolutely they do. They could make the entire sport so much better, but because of the "history" of the game, and the "baseball purists" nothing that needs to change will in the sport and it will continue to slowly die and lose popularity until they will be forced to change, but by that time it will be too late.
 
If I'm not mistaken, salaries that are paid to managers, coaches, scouts, GM's, etc don't count against the cap in Football/Hockey/Basketball so I doubt they would in baseball. That's clearly an apples and oranges comparisoon and a weak arguement to oppose a floor/ceiling salary cap.

The question was posed in another thread about installing a salary cap. Where each team would each team would be required to spend league minimums (floor) and maximums (ceiling). The general idea is to stop the large market teams that are rolling in revenue from "buying" championships and to level the playing field and make the smaller markets more competitive.

While on a jog I got to thinking about the question and I was inspired to look this up on the internet and found some interesting articles on this topic -->

http://www.athbaseball.com/20100304206/2010-archives/march/mlb-salary-cap-debating-the-merits.html

http://www.benfry.com/salaryper/

IMO I would think it would be disastrous to install a salary cap. The teams that don't have a steady and diverse revenue stream would be forced into the brink of bankruptcy. The smaller market teams would spend so much on fielding the team that they wouldn't be able to attract the good scouts, coaches, etc ... The large markets would have a distinct advantage here and would be able to better identify prospects and pay for top notch managers. In the end, I think the large market teams would actually win more championships w/ a salary cap.
 
If anybody thinks that a salary cap would hurt small market teams, the are missing the point. Baseball would benefit so much from a salary cap (and floor) it should be a no-brainer. Except MLB has a
Spoiler
hard-on
for their own history. MLB loves the old guard, Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals being successful.

Why are the Cardinals on this list? They have the 12th highest payroll not even at $100 mil. I understand your a Cardinals hater, but instead of the Cards insert... Dodgers, Phillies, Angels, Tigers, Giants, Twins.. all higher than Stl.
 
Why are the Cardinals on this list? They have the 12th highest payroll not even at $100 mil. I understand your a Cardinals hater, but instead of the Cards insert... Dodgers, Phillies, Angels, Tigers, Giants, Twins.. all higher than Stl.

I think you might want to read his post again. He said nothing about their salary.
 
I think he was talking about the proposed historical nature of those franchises and why baseball may love them to not have a salary cap put in place

Why are the Cardinals on this list? They have the 12th highest payroll not even at $100 mil. I understand your a Cardinals hater, but instead of the Cards insert... Dodgers, Phillies, Angels, Tigers, Giants, Twins.. all higher than Stl.
 
I would LOVE a salary cap in MLB, but I am most certainly biased because my Blue Jays are stuck in a division with the Evil Empire and Mini Evil Empire (realign the divisions and I don't care as much). Baseball is an individual sport (queue the fight lol), so a bigger payroll makes a huge difference, just like it does in Basketball. Football and especially hockey are different because team chemistry and coaching are so important. Before the NHL cap, the Leafs and Rangers always spent way beyond everyone else and they have exactly 1 cup between them in memory.
 
Back
Top