We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Debating pro/cons of installing salary cab for MLB

ddec0418 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That works out really well. KC's payroll is $35 million. The top two Yankees salaries combined is nearly 40% higher than that.
 
Smallville said:
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.
Click to expand...
Someone could make the argument though that if KC had spent the money to keep these players that maybe they would not be in the position that they are right now. Maybe they couldn't have spent the money, maybe they just didn't want to. I think a lot of teams like to play the 'woe is me' card and keep the revenue they get and never really want to spend anything. They would have had the best OF in baseball. Maybe that propels them to a couple of playoff appearances and a bunch of wins. The K becomes a tough ticket. Local TV ratings go through the roof. Merchandise is flying off the shelf. New revenue sources pop up every day. Now that they have more revenue, they can go out and get a couple of FA pieces they are missing and go to the WS. But instead of giving that a try, they let them go or trade for more prospects and start the cycle over again. A bad cycle at that. I guess my point is, if these teams never try to field a winning team, how will they ever know what their potential is? To those teams, I have no sympathy.
 
JB said:
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.
Click to expand...

The MLB can control profit sharing and they thought they did until some teams like the Marlins started to pocket the cash rather than dump it back into things like player personnel/management, scouting, ect,ect. Did you know that some of the richest owners in baseball own some of the worst teams. Why is that? I'm not saying that they aren't trying to win, but in the end all owners are not like Mark Cuban. They are trying to make money first and then win games second. If both of these things happen at the same time then it is a win-win for the owners.
 
Smallville said:
That works out really well. KC's payroll is $35 million. The top two Yankees salaries combined is nearly 40% higher than that.
Click to expand...

But I think the Royals are one of those teams that is very profitable. They make $$$$$$$$ and they don't even have to win.
 
Mardin said:
The MLB can control profit sharing and they thought they did until some teams like the Marlins started to pocket the cash rather than dump it back into things like player personnel/management, scouting, ect,ect. Did you know that some of the richest owners in baseball own some of the worst teams. Why is that? I'm not saying that they aren't trying to win, but in the end all owners are not like Mark Cuban. They are trying to make money first and then win games second. If both of these things happen at the same time then it is a win-win for the owners.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason a floor is needed. But dont fool yourself into thinking that teams that spend a ton are not also making money. And because of certain TV deals in place, they dont even have to disclose certain profits. Hence the reason a floor is just as important like has been said from the beginning.
 
Redman said:
Interesting read -- http://baseball.realgm.com/src_calltothebullpen/97/20100408/baseballs_best_profiteers/

Find it kind of reprehensible that the Marlins, Nationals, and Padres make that kind of revenue and field sub par teams year over year.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They take advantage of the crappy system the same way the financially well off teams do on the other side. The entire system is a joke, but until all the owners are on the same page it wont change and frankly we all know that will never happen. But keep in mind that there are revenues not included in those numbers that can skew things quite a bit.
 
I think it would need to be a a much bigger overhaul than just adding a cap for the system to work. The NHL is working very well with a cap system and the majority of teams are very competitive. In the NHL a much larger number of teams make the playoffs and enjoy the financial benefits that come along with the playoffs. NHL teams can also trade their draft picks which is something MLB teams are not allowed to do. This makes it easier to pull off more trades and allows teams to get more in return for players that they can't afford to sign that the current Type A or B free agent system does.
 
Mardin said:
But I think the Royals are one of those teams that is very profitable. They make $$$$$$$$ and they don't even have to win.
Click to expand...

Yeah, according to that article a few posts up they made 8.9 million (6th worst in MLB). So they could actually pay out 44 million. That would help a lot.
 
Smallville said:
That works out really well. KC's payroll is $35 million. The top two Yankees salaries combined is nearly 40% higher than that.
Click to expand...

what does the Yankees payroll have to do with that?
Since revenue sharing came in look how many teams have bought out their guys arbitration years so that they could budget and keep them in that uniform. KC did it with Grienke and Billy Butler. Indians did it with Sizemore and Carmona, the Mets(though not a small market team) still did it with Reyes(which they stole that contract negotiation from him 4 year 23 mil). More examples are the Rays with Longoria, D'backs with Upton and Young. It's not a perfect system, not by any means. But this is something that has happened a lot more since revenue sharing came in to play and it's a good thing.
 
ddec0418 said:
what does the Yankees payroll have to do with that?
Since revenue sharing came in look how many teams have bought out their guys arbitration years so that they could budget and keep them in that uniform. KC did it with Grienke and Billy Butler. Indians did it with Sizemore and Carmona, the Mets(though not a small market team) still did it with Reyes(which they stole that contract negotiation from him 4 year 23 mil). More examples are the Rays with Longoria, D'backs with Upton and Young. It's not a perfect system, not by any means. But this is something that has happened a lot more since revenue sharing came in to play and it's a good thing.
Click to expand...

Buying out an arbitration year and keeping talent long term are two different things. Then add to that the fact that most top talent "buying" is limited to the top 10-14 teams and you have a recipe for failure. Unfortunately despite declining local markets in many, ticket sales in quite a few and a past time that is not much of a past time in half the markets, MLB will not make any changes because the top 6-10 is quite happy and keeping them happy keeps over 50% of baseball fans happy.
 
ddec0418 said:
what does the Yankees payroll have to do with that?
Since revenue sharing came in look how many teams have bought out their guys arbitration years so that they could budget and keep them in that uniform. KC did it with Grienke and Billy Butler. Indians did it with Sizemore and Carmona, the Mets(though not a small market team) still did it with Reyes(which they stole that contract negotiation from him 4 year 23 mil). More examples are the Rays with Longoria, D'backs with Upton and Young. It's not a perfect system, not by any means. But this is something that has happened a lot more since revenue sharing came in to play and it's a good thing.
Click to expand...


Excellent point! I even think the Giants did this with Lincecum two years ago. This money surely helps the small market teams.
 
Lets take a look at an example since people are discussing buying out arbitration years. Votto. Cincy signed him to an extension through his arbitration years, and no question that is because of revenue sharing. He got a 3 year 38 million deal I believe. Assuming the recent contract trends for top end free agents holds, Votto should have no problem getting a contract for at least 6 years (at the end of this deal in 3 years) with an average annual salary of $20-25M. He will be 30 years old at that point and right in his prime. It is simply not possible for the Reds to be able to pay him that money.
 
JB said:
Lets take a look at an example since people are discussing buying out arbitration years. Votto. Cincy signed him to an extension through his arbitration years, and no question that is because of revenue sharing. He got a 3 year 38 million deal I believe. Assuming the recent contract trends for top end free agents holds, Votto should have no problem getting a contract for at least 6 years (at the end of this deal in 3 years) with an average annual salary of $20-25M. He will be 30 years old at that point and right in his prime. It is simply not possible for the Reds to be able to pay him that money.
Click to expand...

which is true, they are different things. However, by buying out the arbitration years you are at least keeping your window open a little bit more, it's not perfect. However in the case of the Reds they were able to buy out those years for both Jay Bruce and Joey Votto this past off season. Thus they can work within a budget now for the next few years and know what money will be allocated where. Without buying those years, esp in Votto's case, he could have seen his salary go from under 600k last season to around 8 mil this season and then who knows where where it goes the following years. The Reds also signed Cueto and tried to offer Volquez a 4 year deal which he turned down(from what I know). My point is that revenue sharing has helped smaller market teams esp when it comes to prolonging their window of opportunity. I think this tends to get over looked when discussing a salary cap.
 
ddec0418 said:
which is true, they are different things. However, by buying out the arbitration years you are at least keeping your window open a little bit more, it's not perfect. However in the case of the Reds they were able to buy out those years for both Jay Bruce and Joey Votto this past off season. Thus they can work within a budget now for the next few years and know what money will be allocated where. Without buying those years, esp in Votto's case, he could have seen his salary go from under 600k last season to around 8 mil this season and then who knows where where it goes the following years. The Reds also signed Cueto and tried to offer Volquez a 4 year deal which he turned down(from what I know). My point is that revenue sharing has helped smaller market teams esp when it comes to prolonging their window of opportunity. I think this tends to get over looked when discussing a salary cap.
Click to expand...

Of course it has helped and I am not sure anybody could dispute that. Unfortunately it still only moves the inevitable for a couple of extra years. However this example makes the point perfectly about what is wrong with the system at the highest level. Joey Votto will turn 30 and assuming he stays the same or even similar player, he will only be able to be signed by about 8 teams. The other 24 simply cannot afford him. That is absolutely absurd in the world of sports.

Right now, half of MLB is nothing more than a farm system in many cases because the 2nd (or 3rd) contract for any top talent leads to money that half the league cannot afford to pay.
It always goes back to the same thing. Tell me one advantage that not having a salary cap and floor brings to the table for competitive sports and making it a level playing field?
 
I don't think you and I disagree a whole lot on this topic. It's not a perfect system that is in place. But it can work for smaller market teams to have a window of opportunity that is more prolonged then it used to be. I would love to see a salary floor and really I'd be fine with a salary cap(yes even as a Yankees fan).
 
ddec0418 said:
I don't think you and I disagree a whole lot on this topic. It's not a perfect system that is in place. But it can work for smaller market teams to have a window of opportunity that is more prolonged then it used to be. I would love to see a salary floor and really I'd be fine with a salary cap(yes even as a Yankees fan).
Click to expand...

But that is just it. Why should some teams only get a small window of opportunity and some teams get a prolonged one?
And I would still love anybody to tell me what the negatives are for MLB of a floor and cap system?
I have asked so many in MLB this over the years and not one ever has an answer.
To quote a great NFL Owner.
"Those that are opposed to the salary cap are opposed to a level playing field."
 
A salary cap would kill baseball. Having big names in small markets won't do much for those markets. NOT having big names in big markets would kill those teams.
 
stecho said:
A salary cap would kill baseball. Having big names in small markets won't do much for those markets. NOT having big names in big markets would kill those teams.
Click to expand...

I think the statement is a bit of stretch and baseball would not be killed. Other leagues have successfully implemented a salary cap and currently thriving. However, I do think that some of the smaller markets, even w/ some type of revenue sharing would find it tough to field a competitive team year over year and would ultimately move to a larger markets.
 
Last edited:
stecho said:
A salary cap would kill baseball. Having big names in small markets won't do much for those markets. NOT having big names in big markets would kill those teams.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Kansas City had George Brett, Hal McRae, Willie Wilson, Frank White, Dennis Leonard, Dan Quisenberry all at the same time. Did fine for our market back in the day. Could you imagine how long they could keep those players on the team now? If there was a salary cap they might be able to fit them in. Or at least some of them. Right now though, we could afford none of them. They would be playing for one of the money teams.

The salary cap works in the NFL, and the small markets are doing just fine. And so are the teams in the big markets. Why would it not work in baseball?

Another league that really needs a salary cap, is the English Premier League (soccer). Not just them, all of European soccer really.
 
JB said:
But that is just it. Why should some teams only get a small window of opportunity and some teams get a prolonged one?
And I would still love anybody to tell me what the negatives are for MLB of a floor and cap system?
I have asked so many in MLB this over the years and not one ever has an answer.
To quote a great NFL Owner.
"Those that are opposed to the salary cap are opposed to a level playing field."
Click to expand...

Im quoting myself here, because I would still love to hear an answer to this question.

stecho said:
A salary cap would kill baseball. Having big names in small markets won't do much for those markets. NOT having big names in big markets would kill those teams.
Click to expand...

No offense, but this does not make any sense whatsoever.
According to this, smaller market teams dont matter as much.
 
Smallville said:
Seriously?

Kansas City had George Brett, Hal McRae, Willie Wilson, Frank White, Dennis Leonard, Dan Quisenberry all at the same time. Did fine for our market back in the day. Could you imagine how long they could keep those players on the team now? If there was a salary cap they might be able to fit them in. Or at least some of them. Right now though, we could afford none of them. They would be playing for one of the money teams.

The salary cap works in the NFL, and the small markets are doing just fine. And so are the teams in the big markets. Why would it not work in baseball?

Another league that really needs a salary cap, is the English Premier League (soccer). Not just them, all of European soccer really.
Click to expand...

They possibly could, but who is to say that even if there is a cap(say 140 mil) that the Royals would still have the money to sign those players? I still say a salary floor is a better place to start than a salary cap.
I think it works great in football because football has become more of a national game where as baseball is more regional.
Please don't go Dr. Dolphin and bring soccer in to this:alien:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top