Salary Cap

[McGahee]

papelbon58 said:

I was just making the point that it doesn't matter what the payroll is... any team can beat any team... However the Red Sox and Yankees are just better.. payroll doesn't determine how good a team is.. for example the Cubs have a 94M payroll and they are going nowhere.. and the A's are at 62M and they are in contention to win their division

That may be the stupidest argument in the thread. Of the 15 teams with the highest payrolls in the league, 6 are set to make the playoffs. Oakland and Cincy are the only 2 teams in the lower half set to make it, and the As are barely hanging on and Cincy has 6 teams chasing them in the Wildcard. Of the top 5 team payrolls, at least 3 (possibly 4) will make the playoffs.

The reason the Cubs are doing so poorly with a high payroll is Kerry Wood and Mark Prior combine for almost $16M of the $94M payroll, and they are supposed to be the two aces of team and rarely play. Then in desperation to make a push when Derek Lee went down, they traded for Phil Nevin and his $10M+ contract to try and stay competitve. So if you look at the Cubs that actually play half the year and use their salaries, then you'd see that the Cubs would be in the lower half of the league.

Other teams that "appear" to be high spenders that aren't performing are the Giants. Don't you think if Barry Bonds didn't suddenly slow down, his $20M per year wouldn't be so hard to get rid of? Philadelphia suffers from "over-paying average players"-itis. Jon Lieber and Arthur Rhodes account for 1/6 of the Phillies payrolls. Of course, you could blame that on management, but when you know it's either overpay for this guy or the Sox get him, then that's what they do. And it's ruining the game, which I've seemed to get no further response too. You Sox fans keep arguing that management doesn't care, but you clearly are missing the big picture here...

[USN]

It doesn't matter why they overpay... they are still doing it.. they thought they were worth it.... something (in this case talent) is only worth what you are willing to pay for it.

[McGahee]

papelbon58 said:

It doesn't matter why they overpay... they are still doing it.. they thought they were worth it.... something (in this case talent) is only worth what you are willing to pay for it.

So you're in favor of 30 teams all trying to be like the Yankees and Red Sox? Then you have what I said before: inflation will soar, and it's going to cost $10M to sign a backup catcher.

[USN]

no because the teams won't pay it... thay have to be WILLING to pay it

[USN]

(MLB president and COO) Bob (DuPuy) and I went over a bunch of the revenue situations in Major League Baseball. For example, I was suggesting that you’re going to struggle to cap salaries if you have no salary basement. I pointed out the Florida Marlins as a disaster. And he said, well, maybe on a one-year basis you can’t look at it that way. You have to have a salary basement over a three- to four- year basis. You can’t tell a team like Milwaukee, or Minnesota did some years ago, “don’t just build with your kids,” because look where it’s gotten the Twins, look where it might get the Brewers, or maybe it will get the Marlins sometime soon, a team that has won multiple World Series in the last decade. So, (a) salary cap, I think is going to be tough. I am strongly, however, in favor of more revenue sharing, more luxury tax, (and) more of the big-market money going to help the smaller market teams. … And, I think in regards to the basement, there has to be some … quantifiable proof … to the teams that are making money, that have the big payrolls and the big luxury tax and revenue sharing bills, (that) the money is being spent on competitive balance. You offer that tangible evidence, and I will stand up to George (Steinbrenner) and any of the other owners and fight that fight. But I need to be able to back it up with tangible evidence that the money is going to be spent on competitive balance.

[McGahee]

papelbon58 said:

no because the teams won't pay it... thay have to be WILLING to pay it

Okay lets say these owners all want to become like the Sox, Yankees, and Sox and pay out big bucks. Then you get your $300M payrolls. Now what?

I don't get what you're trying to say. It's a proven fact that teams with higher payrolls have a 75% more likely chance to get into the playoffs than the lower ones. So obviously you'd have to pay more to have a better chance to win. But when teams start to try this, then everyone is stuck paying out ludircrous amounts to undeserving players. I don't think you realize how spoiled these guys are already. The plan isn't to clean out owners wallets by giving them more...

Basically, if the structure changes, it will collapse. If the Marlins, Devil Rays, and Twins started to pay more, then everyone would have to pay more, and then it turns into the NHL strike, where the owners realize how stupid it was to overpay for some of these players. And I think it's safe to say that hockey players would be much more eager to get back on the ice than baseball players owuld, so there's definitely a higher chance that the players would walk out and collect their loads of cash. The reason hockey went on is because the players accepted the owners mistake so they could do what they love. There's no way guys like Jason Giambi or Manny Ramirez would take pay cuts to come back and play...

[USN]

you have to have a cap on both sides.. a minimum and maximum.. that's what will make baseball competitive.. and neither will happen

[Sportsbuck]

Why don't we just put all of the players into a pool and hav a fantasy draft with a salary cap? </end retarded idea>

[TJFOR3]

</end retarded idea> is right

[McGahee]

One could dream... it's just a shame that half the league would hold out. Seriously though, if you made it so that no contract could extend past the last remaining contract right now, and that everyone would be a free agent in the same year, then have a draft (possibly even make it so teams can keep 3 players still on their team) and then have a draft where depending on where you're picked is the amount of money you receive, it could possibly work... could...

[sprew8]

papelbon58 said:

you have to have a cap on both sides.. a minimum and maximum.. that's what will make baseball competitive.. and neither will happen

Yup just like in almost every other sports. I think teams with huge salary cap are ruining the game, at least for me. Why watch a game like Yankees vs Toronto or Tampa Bay if you know Yankees will probably sweep them easely....

It's just boring...

[Loki]

sprew8 said:

papelbon58 said:

you have to have a cap on both sides.. a minimum and maximum.. that's what will make baseball competitive.. and neither will happen

Yup just like in almost every other sports. I think teams with huge salary cap are ruining the game, at least for me. Why watch a game like Yankees vs Toronto or Tampa Bay if you know Yankees will probably sweep them easely....

It's just boring...

Just like that doesn't happen. Watch more baseball, things aren't that widespread. The lack of a salary cap is what makes things more competitive and more exciting. The Yankees just got into 1st place and they have been blowing teams out or anything. Last time they won the world series was when? 2000. Quit complaining because the 'Jays just can't cut it in that division. No salary cap makes baseball, eff the even playing field, that's not reality if a team doesn't have something to overcome.

[sprew8]

loki1230 said:

sprew8 said:

Yup just like in almost every other sports. I think teams with huge salary cap are ruining the game, at least for me. Why watch a game like Yankees vs Toronto or Tampa Bay if you know Yankees will probably sweep them easely....

It's just boring...

The lack of a salary cap is what makes things more competitive and more exciting.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

[USN]

The notional impact of a salary cap on competitive balance comes from two places. One is the idea that a team's success is tied to its payroll. It's a wrong-headed one, driven by a number of factors including the Yankees' success over the past seven years with a high payroll, the willingness of some teams at the low end of the revenue and payroll scales to suck up revenue-sharing dollars, and a whole host of convoluted statistics cooked up by the Blue Ribbon Panel of Experts Picked by Bud Selig to Produce a Report That Supported His Ideas With as Little Input From Unfriendlies as Possible.

There is no clear relationship between success and payroll, particularly at the high end of the scale. Spending gobs of money on baseball players doesn't guarantee success, even in the wild-card era, as recent performances by the Orioles, Mets, Dodgers, and Red Sox show. It is possible--if more difficult--to win while having a low payroll. The success of the A's and, at least in 2001, the Twins is evidence that even a vanishingly low payroll isn't an absolute barrier to success.

The interactions among payroll and success and market size and revenue and capitalization are complex. When you look at the big picture, at all the reasons why some teams are successful and some aren't, why some are high-revenue and some aren't, there's just no way to pick one solution--a salary cap--from the ether and say "this will make everything right."

Well, to some people there is: the NFL. The blessed NFL is held up as an example of a wildly successful league with a salary cap. The truth is that the NFL's nominal "competitive balance" is a function of a number of factors, including the shorter season, larger playoffs, fixed scheduling, and the greater impact of a reverse-order draft in a sport where players can make a more significant initial impact.

To the extent that the salary cap contributes to competitive balance, I would say that it works negatively: it punishes success, forcing well-built, winning teams to shed talent on a near-constant basis. It also makes it virtually impossible to trade, increasing the impact of a single catastrophic event in a league where teams cannot make adjustments on the fly. A system that punishes success, rather than rewards it, seems an odd construct for any endeavor, and it's one I have difficulty supporting.

www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1345

[USN]

MLB doesn't need to be like NFL...

www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020306daily.shtml

[Loki]

sprew8 said:

loki1230 said:

The lack of a salary cap is what makes things more competitive and more exciting.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

Ha...whatever then. Can't address the rest of what i said because i'm right.

[sprew8]

The only thing I have to say is : Don't tell me every team has a chance of winning it all.

Please don't tell me that.

[TJFOR3]

Does every team in Football or Hockey have a chance to win it all???

You see, a salary cap wouldn't do anything except make the players get paid less

[USN]

sprew8 said:

The only thing I have to say is : Don't tell me every team has a chance of winning it all.

Please don't tell me that.

They have a chance... just because it's not probable doesn't mean it's not possible.. no matter how unlikely something is.. it could still happen

[McGahee]

tjfor3 said:

Does every team in Football or Hockey have a chance to win it all???

You see, a salary cap wouldn't do anything except make the players get paid less

Actually, in these leagues, half the teams are legitimate contenders to win. NOBODY would have thought the Lightning or Canes would have won the Cup on day one. Right now in baseball, there are maybe 2 in the NL and MAYBE 4 in the AL. The only "underdog" in this is Detroit, who nobody expected...

Also, loki, the Yankees haven't won since 2000. That's great! So now that means high payroll does not equal championships!!!!111 Oh wait, that's right. How's this. Since 1998, of the 9 winners, only 2 were in the lower half of team salaries. So just because the team that's paying the most isn't winning, it doesn't mean that because the 2nd highest paying team wins it's alright...