Should the MLB have a salary cap?

[coltsfan23]

I was just curious as to everyone's opinion on this. The NHL, NFL, and the NBA already have a cap, so the MLB is the last of the four who doesn't.

In my opinion, I believe there should be no salary cap, like it is currently ran. The MLB is a business first, so it makes little sense to try and cap owners from spending as little or as much as they want. Sure, as fans, it might be frustrating when your team's owner doesn't feel like spending as much as money, while teams like the Red Sox and Yankees are willing to, but that's all part of the business. It'll all depend on the philosophy of the current owner of that team. Some believe that the best return on their investment will come from spending a lot of money on acquiring players, while others believe that one doesn't need to necessarily spend $150M+ to produce a quality team that makes a decent ROI year in and year out.

To try and control the amount owners of baseball clubs spend on players is like trying to control the amount CEOs and founders of other businesses spend on trying to grow their operations. Neither makes sense, at least to me.

I'd especially be interested to hear from people who believe the MLB should have a salary cap.

 

[mredsox89]

No. A salary floor would do much more than a salary cap. From a business perspective, I don't think there should be a cap or a floor. From a fan, I would think a floor would provide for much more competition than a cap

 

[Jeff D]

Yes. A salary cap is essential to making small markets (and the game in general) competitive.

The reason players don't stay with teams their whole career anymore is almost entirely because of money. Mauer is the exception, not the rule. And it will probably end up hurting the Twins in 4-5 years.

As far as a "floor," besides it being based on the premise that teams like Pittsburgh are pocketing tons of cash (which is incorrect) it doesn't make feasible sense. Are teams supposed to go out and overpay for mid-level players to make the cap?
Say the Brewers make a play for Prince and offer him 6 years/$120 million. LA swoops in and offers 7/$150M. So the money Milwaukee hoped to spend on Fielder goes unspent and puts them under the floor. Do they have to now sign JJ Hardy for 1yr/$30M?

Not to mention a floor won't help balance out the spending. All it will do is make the players more money. NY will ALWAYS be able to outspend small market teams in an open market.

 

[mredsox89]

Yes. A salary cap is essential to making small markets (and the game in general) competitive.

The reason players don't stay with teams their whole career anymore is almost entirely because of money. Mauer is the exception, not the rule. And it will probably end up hurting the Twins in 4-5 years.

As far as a "floor," besides it being based on the premise that teams like Pittsburgh are pocketing tons of cash (which is incorrect) it doesn't make feasible sense. Are teams supposed to go out and overpay for mid-level players to make the cap?
Say the Brewers make a play for Prince and offer him 6 years/$120 million. LA swoops in and offers 7/$150M. So the money Milwaukee hoped to spend on Fielder goes unspent and puts them under the floor. Do they have to now sign JJ Hardy for 1yr/$30M?

Not to mention a floor won't help balance out the spending. All it will do is make the players more money. NY will ALWAYS be able to outspend small market teams in an open market.

Salary caps don't make the Marlins and Pirates more competitive. Force them to spend $50M with a salary floor and all of a sudden the top level teams lose salary anyways, and the lower level teams become more competitive. The Pirates, Padres etc are going to suffer no matter how much the Redsox and Yankees etc. spend. They become better if MLB forces them to spend money. But the MLB won't do that because they are terrified of pissing off all the owners.

 

[Zithy]

Don't think that if there was a salary cap that the price to see a game would be any different. So, a salary cap would only put more profits into the owners pocket instead of the players.

Plus the players association would never agree to it.

I say no cap. If a team is a small market, they need to learn how to succeed with their limitations and take advantage of when they have that magical season without injuries.

 

[Jays_Cards]

Absolutely not.

 

[JoshHamilton]

MLB should have a cap and a floor. Say $125m and $65m.

I would love to see the Yankees completely flounder because they have no idea how to build a team that doesn't involve signing high priced free agents and gutting their farm system

 

[Bornagaincollector]

I believe they should make every team field a min of 60 million team.I don't if its true but there was a story about 1-2 years ago about how lowend owners getting like 50-75 million before the season starts.

I don't know if thats true,but if it's only half true.then the fans are getting screwed.

 

[mredsox89]

I believe they should make every team field a min of 60 million team.I don't if its true but there was a story about 1-2 years ago about how lowend owners getting like 50-75 million before the season starts.

I don't know if thats true,but if it's only half true.then the fans are getting screwed.

The bottom level teams receive more from shared revenue, etc than they spend on their payroll before they even open the gates for opening day

 

[Jeff D]

I believe they should make every team field a min of 60 million team.I don't if its true but there was a story about 1-2 years ago about how lowend owners getting like 50-75 million before the season starts.

I don't know if thats true,but if it's only half true.then the fans are getting screwed.

The bottom level teams receive more from shared revenue, etc than they spend on their payroll before they even open the gates for opening day

And Arod makes more in one season than the Pirates will make all year in ticket revenue. How are they supposed to compete with that?

Also, part of the collective bargaining agreement wrt revenue sharing stipulates how that money must be used. So the teams can't simply pocket it.

Here's a good article (albeit a little older) that is pretty balanced in the discussion of the issue (and where the money goes):

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 58555.html

 

[mredsox89]

I believe they should make every team field a min of 60 million team.I don't if its true but there was a story about 1-2 years ago about how lowend owners getting like 50-75 million before the season starts.

I don't know if thats true,but if it's only half true.then the fans are getting screwed.

The bottom level teams receive more from shared revenue, etc than they spend on their payroll before they even open the gates for opening day

And Arod makes more in one season than the Pirates will make all year in ticket revenue. How are they supposed to compete with that?

Also, part of the collective bargaining agreement wrt revenue sharing stipulates how that money must be used. So the teams can't simply pocket it.

Here's a good article (albeit a little older) that is pretty balanced in the discussion of the issue (and where the money goes):

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 58555.html

First off, ticket revenue is relatively meaningless in overall $ that teams have. Such a small percentage of overall revenue comes from ticket prices. Second, there are ways around not using the revenue sharing money directly to payroll

 

[Jeff D]

I believe they should make every team field a min of 60 million team.I don't if its true but there was a story about 1-2 years ago about how lowend owners getting like 50-75 million before the season starts.

I don't know if thats true,but if it's only half true.then the fans are getting screwed.

The bottom level teams receive more from shared revenue, etc than they spend on their payroll before they even open the gates for opening day

And Arod makes more in one season than the Pirates will make all year in ticket revenue. How are they supposed to compete with that?

Also, part of the collective bargaining agreement wrt revenue sharing stipulates how that money must be used. So the teams can't simply pocket it.

Here's a good article (albeit a little older) that is pretty balanced in the discussion of the issue (and where the money goes):

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 58555.html

First off, ticket revenue is relatively meaningless in overall $ that teams have. Such a small percentage of overall revenue comes from ticket prices. Second, there are ways around not using the revenue sharing money directly to payroll

I don't want to get into a pissing match with you about this, but it's incorrect to say that ticket revenue is a meaningless source of income.

Even so, the Yankees make hundreds of millions of dollars in ticket revenue annually. And in a conversation about salary caps, and small markets having a competitive chance to win (or field a competitive team), that kind of cash coming in is most certainly not "meaningless."

And there aren't "ways around" not using the revenue sharing money for payroll. There are ACCEPTABLE alternative uses (such as player development in Latin America). Point being, it isn't lining the owners pockets, it's going towards trying to be competitive.

 

[mredsox89]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 58555.html[/url]

First off, ticket revenue is relatively meaningless in overall $ that teams have. Such a small percentage of overall revenue comes from ticket prices. Second, there are ways around not using the revenue sharing money directly to payroll

I don't want to get into a pissing match with you about this, but it's incorrect to say that ticket revenue is a meaningless source of income.

And even so, the Yankees make hundreds of millions of dollars in ticket revenue. And in a conversation about salary caps, and small markets having a competitive chance to win (or field a competitive team), that kind of cash coming in is most certainly not "meaningless."

And there aren't "ways around" not using the revenue sharing money for payroll. There are ACCEPTABLE alternative uses (such as player development in Latin America).[/quote:vakpp1l2]

DId I say they were meaningless? I said relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things. When compared to TV, other media, sponsorships, concessions, merchandise, tickets are near the bottom of that order. There is a reason that teams can still make significant profits even if attendance is miserable. Acceptable alternative, ways of getting around it are the same thing. In the overall revenue of a team, ticket revenues are a very small portion of the overall "pie". Will ticket sales help, of course. But more importantly, if you say you can get 20K vs 10K to show up consistently, you get sponsorship money, which will greatly outweigh your ticket revenues.

 

[Jeff D]

DId I say they were meaningless? I said relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things. When compared to TV, other media, sponsorships, concessions, merchandise, tickets are near the bottom of that order. There is a reason that teams can still make significant profits even if attendance is miserable. Acceptable alternative, ways of getting around it are the same thing. In the overall revenue of a team, ticket revenues are a very small portion of the overall "pie". Will ticket sales help, of course. But more importantly, if you say you can get 20K vs 10K to show up consistently, you get sponsorship money, which will greatly outweigh your ticket revenues.

It's not a "very small potion of the overall." I'll give you it's A portion of the pie. But by no means "very small."
Do you think that the Pirates are making $100M+ a year in tv or "sponsorship" (whatever you mean by that)?

Here's a source, for instance, stating that HALF the Yankees revenue comes from ticket sales:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/112667

And here's another from Milwaukee, with a direct quote from a team executive:

"Our No. 1 revenue source is revenue from admissions, so the increased attendance is significant to the bottom line," said Rick Schlesinger, Brewers' executive vice president of business operations. "My job is to bring in revenue so that (general manager) Doug Melvin can use it for building the team on the field, through the Major League payroll and minor league development."

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/st ... tory1.html

 

[mredsox89]

DId I say they were meaningless? I said relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things. When compared to TV, other media, sponsorships, concessions, merchandise, tickets are near the bottom of that order. There is a reason that teams can still make significant profits even if attendance is miserable. Acceptable alternative, ways of getting around it are the same thing. In the overall revenue of a team, ticket revenues are a very small portion of the overall "pie". Will ticket sales help, of course. But more importantly, if you say you can get 20K vs 10K to show up consistently, you get sponsorship money, which will greatly outweigh your ticket revenues.

It's also not a "very small potion of the overall." I'll give you it's A portion of the pie. But by no means "very small."
Do you think that the Pirates are making $100M+ a year in tv or "sponsorship" (whatever you mean by that) ?

Here's a source, for instance, stating that HALF the Yankees revenue comes from ticket sales.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/112667

And here's another from Milwaukee, with a direct quote from a team executive:

"Our No. 1 revenue source is revenue from admissions, so the increased attendance is significant to the bottom line," said Rick Schlesinger, Brewers' executive vice president of business operations. "My job is to bring in revenue so that (general manager) Doug Melvin can use it for building the team on the field, through the Major League payroll and minor league development."

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/st ... tory1.html

Neither include the revenue sharing money or anything else. Teams also write off expenses when listing their "revenues". Its not worth arguing over. I've had discussions with executives of both the Redsox and Marlins and both stated that the numbers reported aren't the true revenues, and can be twisted to either show that a portion is a huge part of their revenue, or it is a small portion. For instance, the Yankees didn't actually lose money, but they can adjust their figures to show such. The Marlins reported that they lost money, when it was impossible considering the amount of money they got from MLB and revenue sharing was more than all of their expenses combined. The Marlins management staff showed that they lost money so they wouldn't have to explain to their fans why they weren't spending money on payroll.

YES generated almost $350M in revenue in 06.

http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/profit/32903/

The YES network isn't directly tied into the Yankees overall revenues, but of course it's revenues relate to how much is spent.

We clearly disagree but we've moved away from the overall topic. A salary cap wouldn't improve the lower level teams.

 

[jeff550]

MLB should have a cap and a floor. Say $125m and $65m.

I would love to see the Yankees completely flounder because they have no idea how to build a team that doesn't involve signing high priced free agents and gutting their farm system

this

 

[011873]

MLB should have a cap and a floor. Say $125m and $65m.

I would love to see the Yankees completely flounder because they have no idea how to build a team that doesn't involve signing high priced free agents and gutting their farm system

The following HOME GROWN players have helped the Yankees win their last five WS and get into the playoffs 15 of the last 16 years:
Jeter
Mariano
Posada
Pettitte
Bernie
Hughes
Joba
Melky
Cano
Mendoza
Robertson
Aceves

Lets all jump aboard the "Yankees buy championships" wagon right now. I mean, we all know thats where this is headed. Perhaps if your team's fans supported your team, you wouldnt be so pissed off. Im sorry that it bothers you and others if the Yanks have millions of fans world wide who spend untold billions of dollars on the team plus a TV station, world wide revenue, etc.

If there becomes a cap, that only means untold MILLIONS of dollars more in the big market clubs owners pockets since it cant be spent. So wouldnt you rather have all that free money from luxury tax given to your team than into the big market teams owners purses?

In reality, what should be done is fold some teams. I know it wont happen but theres no need for 30 teams when some of them flounder year after year and have little to weak fan base.

 

[Jeff D]

Neither include the revenue sharing money or anything else. Teams also write off expenses when listing their "revenues". Its not worth arguing over. I've had discussions with executives of both the Redsox and Marlins and both stated that the numbers reported aren't the true revenues, and can be twisted to either show that a portion is a huge part of their revenue, or it is a small portion. For instance, the Yankees didn't actually lose money, but they can adjust their figures to show such. The Marlins reported that they lost money, when it was impossible considering the amount of money they got from MLB and revenue sharing was more than all of their expenses combined. The Marlins management staff showed that they lost money so they wouldn't have to explain to their fans why they weren't spending money on payroll.

YES generated almost $350M in revenue in 06.

http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/profit/32903/

The YES network isn't directly tied into the Yankees overall revenues, but of course it's revenues relate to how much is spent.

We clearly disagree but we've moved away from the overall topic. A salary cap wouldn't improve the lower level teams.

I am fully aware that the Yankees are misleading about their revenue, especially as it pertains to the YES network. With or without having talked to teams' executives.

And even though you're wrong about the importance of ticket sales to teams, you're right that we've gone off topic. Especially since you seem to be arguing more my point...that there's a complete imbalance of income source with teams like the Yankees (you can be sure that the Pirates don't have a YES network). But to be fair, you were the one that was trying to argue that ticket sales don't mean anything to a team. I was just pointing out that ARod makes more than the Pirates make all year from ticket sales.

The point is that CC Sabathia isn't with the Brewers because the Yankees could offer him more money. The Brewers, while atop many offensive categories, sucked balls in pitching. The Yankees won a championship with him last year. Is that a spurious relationship?

And homegrown talent is great...if you can keep it when they become a FA. Come talk to me in 2 years when Fielder signs with a big market team.

I don't see how anyone can argue that a cap wouldn't at least help even the playing field. And if you don't think that it will, why do you even care if they try? It won't affect your team at all (apparently).
It's odd that a Boston fan is arguing that spending money doesn't help you win. Then why bother spending all that money? It's a completely illogical position to take.

 

[mredsox89]

Neither include the revenue sharing money or anything else. Teams also write off expenses when listing their "revenues". Its not worth arguing over. I've had discussions with executives of both the Redsox and Marlins and both stated that the numbers reported aren't the true revenues, and can be twisted to either show that a portion is a huge part of their revenue, or it is a small portion. For instance, the Yankees didn't actually lose money, but they can adjust their figures to show such. The Marlins reported that they lost money, when it was impossible considering the amount of money they got from MLB and revenue sharing was more than all of their expenses combined. The Marlins management staff showed that they lost money so they wouldn't have to explain to their fans why they weren't spending money on payroll.

YES generated almost $350M in revenue in 06.

http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/profit/32903/

The YES network isn't directly tied into the Yankees overall revenues, but of course it's revenues relate to how much is spent.

We clearly disagree but we've moved away from the overall topic. A salary cap wouldn't improve the lower level teams.

I am fully aware that the Yankees are misleading about their revenue, especially as it pertains to the YES network. With or without having talked to teams' executives.

And even though you're wrong about the importance of ticket sales to teams, you're right that we've gone off topic. Especially since you seem to be arguing more my point...that there's a complete imbalance of income source with teams like the Yankees (you can be sure that the Pirates don't have a YES network). But to be fair, you were the one that was trying to argue that ticket sales don't mean anything to a team. I was just pointing out that ARod makes more than the Pirates make all year from ticket sales.

The point is that CC Sabathia isn't with the Brewers because the Yankees could offer him more money. The Brewers, while atop many offensive categories, sucked balls in pitching. The Yankees won a championship with him last year. Is that a spurious relationship?

And homegrown talent is great...if you can keep it when they become a FA. Come talk to me in 2 years when Fielder signs with a big market team.

I don't see how anyone can argue that a cap wouldn't at least help even the playing field. And if you don't think that it will, why do you even care if they try?
It's odd that a Boston fan is arguing that spending money doesn't help you win. Then why bother spending all that money? It's a completely illogical argument.

Where did I say that spending money doesn't help you win? I said not spending money won't improve your team. 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.

 

[Jeff D]

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.