Baseball needs a salary cap......

[Guest NoCalMike]

Does anyone really disagree? Or do you prefer the same few teams being the only ones in contention every year?

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

I agree 100%. The NHL does too for that matter, but MLB is a lot farther down the road to destruction at this point.

[Guest y2jailbait]

For competition purposes, yes, very much so. Also, this can also lead to millions and millions of dollars in losses. Remember when the Orioles and the Marlins spent all that money to acheive success? Yeah, the marlins won the series, but that whole team was dismantled after that season. The Orioles have never since recovered from there attempt to "Buy" a playoff berth.

[Guest alkeiper]

I'm still opposed to the salary cap. Why not lets teams that make money spend it? And what teams have had absolutely NO shot in the last five years. Most of them have been because of mismanagement. Besides, I hate the constant roster movement of the NFL. I like to see teams keep their players. I gives them an identity.

 

I would like to see revenue sharing instead. Close the gap in what the teams actually make, and make it fair that way instead.

[Guest bob_barron]

Don't they already have revenue sharing in baseball?

[Guest alkeiper]

Ah yes. Improved revenue sharing is what I should say.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

I think a cap on total outside free agent spending would be a good idea. On the other hand, I am very opposed to a flat, hard cap. I think teams should be able to resign their own guys for whatever they want, and here's why: I'm a Detroit Red Wings fan and also a Dallas Cowboys fan. I can name every guy on the Wings roster, many of their prospects, and can follow the team's moves easily. On the other hand, I can name maybe a half-dozen guys currently on the Cowboys, and each year I have no idea what their roster will look like compared to the last. Also when people talk about how well the cap works in the NFL, they completely forget that the TV money is astronomical and so all the teams have a huge chunk of revenue each year before they sell a single ticket.

[Guest DrTom]

They badly need a salary cap, and it's only the players' massive greed that prevents them from realizing how neccessary one is for the health of the game. Along with the salary cap, though, there needs to be greatly increased revenue sharing, as well as a minimum salry figure to prevent teams from just pocketing the money they'll be getting.

[Guest MrRant]

I think baseball needs an exception for free agents to stay with their team kindof like the NBA where a free agent may get something like a maximum 6 years and 70 million dollars to sign with another team but if he resigns can get 80 million.

[Guest alkeiper]

Tom, you'd rather see the greedy owners get that money instead?

[Guest redbaron51]

I would see it happen, but with the ego's of these assholes out there aka agents, thats never going to happen

[Guest alkeiper]

It's called capitalism. Deal with it.

[Guest DrTom]

"Tom, you'd rather see the greedy owners get that money instead?"

 

I think the minimum salary proviso would stop them from lining their pockets too much. Baseball is a business, and business owners should be able to make money. But baseball owners shouldn't just pocket money from revenue sharing while they mismanage their clubs and skimp on payroll. Having to spend a certain amount would alleviate that.

 

I have no problem with a player making $25 million per year. If actors can make $20 million for shooting a movie, then baseball players can get paid similar money for much harder work. As long as the market supports it, it's all good. I think a salary cap is needed not to reduce salaries, but to increase competition.

[Guest MrRant]

While I agree with revenue sharing to a point. I think it should be an equal amount throughout the league. Is it fair that the M's should pay more into it when they have drawn more fans? It seems like you are taking the money you have worked somewhat hard to get and you are just giving it away.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

There needs to be something.

 

Here's the real problem: the players want no part in any kind of a salary "cap" (though I wish they'd call it a "range"), and if the owners won't budge on the cap issue, they'll strike. Now, if the owners don't get something in place, they'll lock the players out next spring - but if the players think there's even a remote chance that they'll get locked out, they're going to strike.

 

So the players are going to strike. August 16th would be my guess on a date, though I'm betting for public relations purposes, we won't know about any date for sure until the date is upon us.

 

MrRant SEZ:

While I agree with revenue sharing to a point. I think it should be an equal amount throughout the league. Is it fair that the M's should pay more into it when they have drawn more fans? It seems like you are taking the money you have worked somewhat hard to get and you are just giving it away.

Well, that's the whole point of revenue sharing - some teams, like the Mariners, Yankees, and Braves, bring in LOTS of revenue while other teams like the Expos and Devil Rays don't. So, those teams that have more give more to make everything even. If I make $120 a day, and you make $20, and we use revenue sharing, then we both end up with $70. Now, I might not have enough money to go buy that new hard drive I've been eyeing, but you can afford to go to Applebee's with the family tonight. That's the idea.

 

alkeiper SEZ:

You'd rather see the greedy owners get that money instead? ... It's called capitalism. Deal with it.

You can't look at it that way, because without revenue sharing or a salary cap or something, the whole of major league baseball will be dead. Everything. The smaller market franchises will DIE. Competitive franchsies, like Oakland, Anaheim, Minnesota, and Montreal. And once franchises start to fall, the entire system will go with it. They can't contract, because they'd alienate hundreds of thousands of fans and the players will strike over the loss of jobs; they can't get revenue sharing, because the players will strike over the centralizing nature of that system; and they can't get a cap, because the players will strike over the limiting of their salaries. But in the current system, team after team is going to go absolutely bankrupt. Major League Baseball will run HUGE deficits as an entire entity, and pretty soon, the banks will come calling. The Yankees might stay solvent, but who cares if there's no other teams left to play?

 

Hogan Made Wrestling SEZ:

I think a cap on total outside free agent spending would be a good idea. On the other hand, I am very opposed to a flat, hard cap.

Well, the NFL's system isn't perfect. I think that the NFL needs to tweak their cap just a little bit to be the right system - but it's better than nothing. Having a hard cap would be better than what's out there now. They can tweak and add exceptions later, but they need to do something right now, even if it's a little bit flawed.

 

LUNATIC

- Pimpin' ho's and clockin' a grip like my name was Dolemite.

 

EDIT: I'm a stickler for form.

[Guest O.J. Hart]

Look, no salary cap will be in baseball till George Steinbrenner dies. He is the only owner that doesn't want salary caps. And that figures because his team, The Yankees, is the reason people want this strike till salary caps are around.

[Guest alkeiper]

Lunatic, I still maintain that none of the teams with the exception of Montreal are in any kind of financial trouble. Baseball is making more money now than it was 25 years ago. Baseball could easily EXPAND without too much trouble. Heck, 32 teams would be a godsend to the schedulers.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Nothing the players could really do about trying to prevent a salary cap. They can make all the threats they want about not playing etc....but look at it this way. The majority of them probobaly have little to nothing to fall back on without baseball, so they can either make 5 million instead of 50 million, or go start up a dry walling company.....Yah, I think they'll take the 5 million.

[Guest alkeiper]

That's not gonna happen. The owners need the business of baseball games a lot more than the players need the salaries. Besides, every time there's been a stoppage, the players have won out. 8 Times in a row now. Its clearly been proven that the players are far more essential to baseball than the owners. Think about this. Who "saved" the game the last time? Cal Ripkin, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa? Ever hear anyone mention guys like Carl Pohlad or the Chicago Tribune? Face it. The players have all the bargaining power. As for the money, most of them have planned for the future and they can more than whether the temporary loss of income.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

O.J. Hart SEZ:

Look, no salary cap will be in baseball till George Steinbrenner dies. He is the only owner that doesn't want salary caps. And that figures because his team, The Yankees, is the reason people want this strike till salary caps are around.

I don't think they're going to need to be unanimous to pass a salary cap. Besides, why would Steinbrenner care? He's got the FREAKIN' YANKEES. Martin, Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri, Mantle, Dickey, Berra, Maris, Rizzuto, Munson, Ford, Mattingly, Howard, Stengel, Reggie. Who wouldn't want to try to be the next in line, even if it meant a pay cut? Mystique is alive and well, folks.

 

alkeiper SEZ:

Lunatic, I still maintain that none of the teams with the exception of Montreal are in any kind of financial trouble. Baseball is making more money now than it was 25 years ago. Baseball could easily EXPAND without too much trouble. Heck, 32 teams would be a godsend to the schedulers.

No, no, no. Major League Baseball IS losing money. They SHOULDN'T be, but they are - because owners' accounting books have shit in them that'd make Arthur Andersen bigwigs cringe. This includes cutting themselves a big, fat paycheck every year, regardless of whether they make money or not. If you own any other kind of business, you live off of the profits, and if there are no profits, your business gets sold. Buying a sports franchise is either a long-term investment where you hope to increase the value of said franchise until you can sell it for a big-time profit, or it's just like any other business entity, where you cut yourself a big check if your company can afford it.

 

NoCalMike SEZ:

Nothing the players could really do about trying to prevent a salary cap. They can make all the threats they want about not playing etc....but look at it this way. The majority of them probobaly have little to nothing to fall back on without baseball, so they can either make 5 million instead of 50 million, or go start up a dry walling company.....Yah, I think they'll take the 5 million.

You'd think that, but the players can always get jobs playing baseball in Latin America and Asia. Also, you think that if MLB crumbles, there won't be organized baseball in America? The minor leagues should stay intact. Their players might all be free agents, but the teams themselves are not owned by major league baseball. For example, the Scranton/Wilkes Barre Red Barons, Philadelphia's Triple-A franchise, are owned by Northeastern Baseball Inc., a corporation founded by business leaders throughout the communities of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre. They pay everything, from monthly salries to operating costs. The only thing Major League Baseball pays for is transportation to and from Philadelphia during spring training and during any call-ups. They won't make NEARLY as much money as they would, but they can make a living.

 

LUNATIC

- Pimpin' ho's and clockin' a grip like my name was Dolemite.

[Guest alkeiper]

Lunatic, what I'm saying is that baseball makes huge profits. Whatever the owners do with it is their business, but they are most certainly not hurting for money.

[Guest The Man in Blak]

I totally agree with the notion of a salary cap with a soft implementation so that teams can be encouraged to sign their own players and create stability and "eras" within teams.

 

The easiest argument to make is that it evens the competitive field. Compare the payrolls of the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, and Braves with the Tigers, Royals, Devil Rays, and Pirates and you'll see a fairly steady correlation between payroll and winning percentage. A soft salary cap with minimum payroll requirements would breed more competition and, consequently, more interest in the game.

 

That's how I see it.

[Guest alkeiper]

Too bad the high payroll Mets and the low payroll A's and Twins throw that all out of whack.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

alkeiper SEZ:

 

... lots of things.

 

Lunatic, what I'm saying is that baseball makes huge profits. Whatever the owners do with it is their business, but they are most certainly not hurting for money.

 

The term "profit" is more abstract than you think, Al. Major League Baseball teams bring in a lot of REVENUE, but they don't make big profits. Here's why. Say you own a small business that brings in $100 a day in revenue. Ok, it's a very small business: you mow lawns all day or something. Now, let's also say that you've got expenses: gas for the lawnmower and hedge trimmer, those pain in the ass strings that weed whackers use, mulch, lunch, and so on. Now, if your expenses come to $50, your total profit is $50 a day. BUT ... if Jeffrey Lorie were to buy your business and run it like an MLB franchise, he'd probably decide that he was going to make $60 a day FIRST, no matter what. That's an expense now: the business has to pay Lorie $60 a day. So now total expenses are $110, which means you run at a loss. That's what MLB owners do. He could, in theory, wait until the $100 revenue comes in, pay the $50 in expenses, and then keep the rest (the profit) for himself, but he doesn't. He takes his cut and lets the business take a loss.

 

Actually, if Jeffrey Lorie bought your business, he'd probably sell your lawn mower for cash and make you bite the grass down to a reasonable size with your teeth.

 

Heck, 32 teams would be a godsend to the schedulers.

 

This is Major League Baseball, whose schedulers couldn't even take 30 teams, divide by 6 divisions, and realize that 5 teams should be in each division. In fact, they MOVED a team from one league to the other to avoid that. Frankly, they should move Montreal to Portland, push the Pirates into the NL East, slide Portland in to the AL West, and that'd solve their logistical as well as scheduling problems.

 

LUNATIC

- Pimpin' ho's and clockin' a grip like my name was Dolemite.

[Guest alkeiper]

To make that scheduling work, you'd have to scrap the leagues entirely. 32 divides into 16, and then into 8, 4 etc. It'd be the easiest thing to do since there were 16 teams.

 

I see what you're saying on the finance thing. Regardless, that's a completely controllable expense. I'd be curious to see if any owners pay themselves, and how much. There's other ways owners can cook their books too. For example, Wayne Huzenga, when he owned the Marlins, also owned the ballpark. The Marlins payed the lease for the ballpark, which went directly back to the owner. The owner payed NO money whatsoever, but the Marlins books take a huge hit.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

alkeiper keeps SAYING THINGS:

I see what you're saying on the finance thing. Regardless, that's a completely controllable expense. I'd be curious to see if any owners pay themselves, and how much. There's other ways owners can cook their books too. For example, Wayne Huzenga, when he owned the Marlins, also owned the ballpark. The Marlins payed the lease for the ballpark, which went directly back to the owner. The owner payed NO money whatsoever, but the Marlins books take a huge hit.

 

Now you're getting it. It IS a completely controllable expense. And if the owners WANTED to run a profit with their teams, I bet you they all COULD. But they don't - on purpose. This way, they can make shitloads of money and still cry poverty to Congress. The business itself - the franchise - IS hurting for money, but the owners are raking in all the money. Major League Baseball is in trouble financially partly because the owners let it. The problem is perception - you say that baseball's got more money than we think, when in actuality, baseball's got less money than they should.

 

Now, before you say something like "so why don't the owners just run their books the right way and quit whining?", the answer is the same as for "why don't the players just agree to a ridiculously high salary cap with minimum total salary almost guaranteed to make sure everyone gets paid well?": because even though it's probably the best thing for baseball, they're so damn greedy that they're going to take their chances and make the other guys cave first. It's becoming a big game of chicken now - only no one seems to be able to see how fast the cliff they're racing toward is coming up on them.

 

LUNATIC

- Pimpin' ho's and clockin' a grip like my name was Dolemite.

[Guest The Man in Blak]

Too bad the high payroll Mets and the low payroll A's and Twins throw that all out of whack.

The A's and the Twins are more like a phoenix rising out of the ashes of repeated bad seasons, with most of their players have been homegrown from development. But when Eric Chavez or Torii Hunter goes unrestricted, how hard is it going to be for them to look away when Steinbrenner is flashing dollar bills in front of them?

 

And how long ago was it when the Mets playing the Yankees in the World Series again?

 

They're just outliers on the statistical track. Sure - there are bad investments on teams such as the Mets, but if you average all the numbers out for all of the teams, I still maintain that you will see a correlation between payroll and winning.

[Guest MrRant]

If people were able to have the money to hold onto their homegrown talent then everything is even. But if you can't even compete then what's the point? But from the Yankee/Mariner/Met/Red Sox position... If they did well enough to make the money, what's wrong with them spending it?

[Guest RobJohnstone]

I was listening to wfan and a caller had a good idea. I have tried to make ti better and here it is, prospects are simply that, but once a player plays significant time, like half a year to year with a team, he must stay there until a certain age like 32 or be traded, no free agency for people under that age. Then the owners can set the prices and the players can;t monoploize and set their salaries to 300 million. Just a thought

 

--Rob

[Guest MrRant]

I say just go with a maximum he can make if he stays and a lower max if he goes (assuming the club can even afford the max if he stays.). I personally would take less money and win. Some players think the same way and get crucified. 32 is a bit much, lots of careers are over then.