Should the MLB have a salary cap?

[beefycheddar]

I'd love to see a cap with the Larry Bird Rule in effect in MLB.

 

[mredsox89]

And I think a cap could somewhat help, but in terms of the pain it would cause trying to implement one, a floor would be much more effective.

All a floor does is help lesser players make more money. Minimum wage doesn't improve the quality of the worker.

Explain to me, if you would, how a floor would help a team get better? The teams with more money WILL ALWAYS outbid the poorer teams for the best talent. If there was a $50M floor, would that have helped the Brewers sign CC? Would the Pirates have then been able to outbid the Yankees? The richer teams will pay for the best players. Nothing would change.

The team will be forced to spend money. There are players that would take the "home town" discount, but the lower level teams can't even reach that when in comparison to the higher end teams. If you force every team to spend $60M, they are forced to not just make their team completely of minimum salary players. A floor gives the team a chance to get some of the better players, compared to 0 chance without it. Teams would also have a better chance of keeping their top players that they develop, compared to now when they are basically expected to ship them off for prospects. Will A-rod, Jeter still go to the Yankees, yes. But mid level FA's could actually end up going to the lower level teams

Neither is going to happen, and therefore at this point the argument for both sides is pointless. The MLBPA and owners have such a strangle hold on every aspect that it is nearly impossible to even implement smaller changes, even if they are obvious. By your reasoning, all implementing a salary cap would do is cause the higher players to get paid less, because the top team will always outspend. If the Marlins aren't going to spend more than $25M, even if the cost of A-rod went down, he would still go to the Yankees.

 

[Jeff D]

By your reasoning, all implementing a salary cap would do is cause the higher players to get paid less, because the top team will always outspend. If the Marlins aren't going to spend more than $25M, even if the cost of A-rod went down, he would still go to the Yankees.

That's not how my reasoning goes. And I'm not sure what kind of salary cap you're talking about. Do you mean a limit on how much a team can spend in a year, or how much a player can make in a year?

The only way what you're saying makes any sense is if you mean a per player cap. In that case, while you're right that most teams wouldn't be able to afford ALL of their players to be at the max (like the Yankees could still probably do), it would allow teams to afford at least a couple of the elite players, and it would allow a player to choose the team they want to sign with rather than simply going to the team with the most money.

But this isn't the kind of cap I really care about. I want a cap on how much a team can spend in a year. Using this model, I don't see how you don't understand the way it would help teams with lower revenue get the premier players.

 

[JoshHamilton]

011873: A whopping three of those players came up in the last decade- Phil, Joba, and Cano. Melky doesn't count, he's no longer with the team. And frankly, I have no idea who the hell the last 3 players you mentioned are.

Everyone else is from the 90's, and most will be retired within the next 3-4 years.

They've done nothing but purchase players or trade prospects since losing the WS in '01- Clemens, Pettite, Moose, Giambi, Sheff, Damon, Arod, Granderson, Swisher, Tex, Nady, Justice, CC, Burnett, Irod...that's off the top of my head.

With a level playing field, what would happen in the next few years? Their core is gone, their farm system is gutted, and they can't sign the highest priced FA's every year without cutting current players' salaries (union won't let that happen)...they'd be toast.

And this goes for Boston as well

 

[mredsox89]

By your reasoning, all implementing a salary cap would do is cause the higher players to get paid less, because the top team will always outspend. If the Marlins aren't going to spend more than $25M, even if the cost of A-rod went down, he would still go to the Yankees.

That's not how my reasoning goes. And I'm not sure what kind of salary cap you're talking about. Do you mean a limit on how much a team can spend in a year, or how much a player can make in a year?

The only way what you're saying makes any sense is if you mean a per player cap. In that case, while you're right that most teams wouldn't be able to afford ALL of their players to be at the max (like the Yankees could still probably do), it would allow teams to afford at least a couple of the elite players, and it would allow a player to choose the team they want to sign with rather than simply going to the team with the most money.

But this isn't the kind of cap I really care about. I want a cap on how much a team can spend in a year. Using this model, I don't see how you don't understand how that would help teams with lower revenue get the premier players.

My last post here just because I have given my thoughts enough. Say the team salary cap is 100 million. The Yankees are still going to significantly be able to outspend a team like the Marlins, who only spend $20M. Will it help, of course, I never said otherwise. But a team that spends $20M or $30M or $40M is still never going to be able to sign that top flight talent at market value. Is the cost of an A-rod going to go down, of course it will, and i never said it wouldn't help the lower level teams and give them a better chance. But even if the top players salaries fall in the $10M range, a team that will spend $100M has a significantly better chance of landing the $10M guys than a team spending $40M.

The only way any of this works is if they implement BOTH a floor and a cap, so that the gap in team spending gets cut significantly. Doing one or the other isn't going to make a significant difference.

 

[Jeff D]

The only way any of this works is if they implement BOTH a floor and a cap, so that the gap in team spending gets cut significantly. Doing one or the other isn't going to make a significant difference.

Well that's a fair enough point (that I'm not sure you were arguing before). And you're right that a team that only wants to spend $36M a year (the floor last year) doesn't get as much benefit out of a cap.

But most teams last year were spending between $60-100M a year. And if the Yankees weren't allowed to spend any more, and CC went on the market, one of those teams at $60M, could be wiling to spend another $20M to get him.

I'm not really a communist that wants to ensure that all teams MUST spend their money. I want it to be more fair to teams that WANT to spend some money, but are constantly outbid by teams that have more resources.

But I could be convinced of a floor/ceiling combo. Just not going to be convinced that a sport whose whole purpose is to entertain through on-field competition needs to be run like a free-market economy.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Floor/ceiling combo with caps on individual players' salaries (based on their service time) a la the NBA.

 

[mredsox89]

The only way any of this works is if they implement BOTH a floor and a cap, so that the gap in team spending gets cut significantly. Doing one or the other isn't going to make a significant difference.

Well that's a fair enough point (that I'm not sure you were arguing before). And you're right that a team that only wants to spend $36M a year (the floor last year) doesn't get as much benefit out of a cap.

But most teams last year were spending between $60-100M a year. And if the Yankees weren't allowed to spend any more, and CC went on the market, one of those teams at $60M, could be wiling to spend another $20M to get him.

I'm not really a communist that wants to ensure that all teams MUST spend their money. I want it to be more fair to teams that WANT to spend some money, but are constantly outbid by teams that have more resources.

But I could be convinced of a floor/ceiling combo. Just not going to be convinced that a sport whose whole purpose is to entertain through on-field competition needs to be run like a free-market economy.

I'm sorry if I came off as a ***** or anything with regards to anything I posted.

To summarize, I personally think a floor would do more good than a cap, and you believe the opposite. No problem with differing opinions.

I just think MLB has moved beyond the "entertainment" aspect, and has become a full fledged business.

 

[Jeff D]

I just think MLB has moved beyond the "entertainment" aspect, and has become a full fledged business.

MLB is 100% business (and big business at that). But the product they're putting out is still meant to entertain. And that's tough to do when people know the outcome.

But clearly the fear of messing with the business side of things (for both the players and owners) is a huge obstacle in changing the current system.

 

[donrusscrusademan]

of course some kind of reform should happen. while its been seen that a low market team can make the playoffs and succeed, them doing it again is extremely hard. the guys that got team X to the playoffs had to have been good enough to want some $$$.

if you want to be dynastic, you better earn it. the yanks in the 90s did earn it.. they got the right guys and had the right coach and took off. but they used money to maintain it. I dont resent that at all. if youre in it to win it, and can build yourself up to a "top 5,every year" level, then why wouldnt you? fans shouldnt hate the yankees or sox for it, they are doing whats in the laws
eventually it has to be regulated though.