I say absolutely not.
Printable View
I say absolutely not.
Absolutely not. No. Never.
Want money? Win.
Total organizational spending cap and basement on all things baseball related. Big, big, big number.
i say yes but not a cap on how much they can spend but how little.
NO, NO, No!
I say YES YES YES....
If thats what it will take to stop seeing this same poll/discussion every other week in these threads.
I say yes, but it needs to be associated with significant revenue sharing and a salary floor. I think that it would improve the competitiveness of the league in the long-run. But it won't happen - MLB needs the large-market teams to do well to drive revenue.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by dickay
and I refer Mtg to some of those past threads on why a salary floor is even worse of an idea than a salary cap
I'm in favor of increased and overhauled revenue sharing, and some manner of salary floor that would be applied on a case-by-case basis. Basically the revenue sharing would be tied to the floor, where you could apply shared revenue to player contracts, but otherwise you forfeit the windfall from the bigger teams if it's not used properly.
All that would do would be drive up player contracts as teams would have to pay sub-standard players increased salaries just to get up to the floorQuote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
No. The floor would be optional. But if you wanted revenue sharing, you'd have to put it on salaries, at which point you'd be forced to accept a salary floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Want to fill your roster with sub-standard players and make no improvements? And not pay the sub-standard players increased salaries? That's fine, but you're not getting any revenue sharing.
Teams would be encouraged to participate in revenue sharing, and therefore participate in free agency very actively. Teams would be encouraged to sign players before or during the few years of arbitration to long-term deals, knowing they would be paid for with revenue sharing. We already HAVE revenue sharing, but for the sake of certain teams (and their fans), the way it's used needs to be changed. Tie it to the salary floor, and it becomes a de facto floor, yet remains optional.
YEars ago I would ahve said yes.... but with what florida does with a sub 30 million payroll is outstanding.
Just for the Yankees:D
LOL. Really, this is like the fourth poll on the exact same question since Tex signed.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I think they go hand-in-hand, and I'm (now) against both.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
And I agree with justanewguy that something should be done to ensure that revenue sharing money is being put into the team (in some form, player contracts or otherwise), instead of pocketed.
You say that jokingly, but, really, when you think about it, if the cap were set at a reasonable number, the Yankees will be the only team affected.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthJaker
Well depnds on your definition of "reasonable number" but IRL the Yankees earn more & PAY more than anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Personally teams like the Marlins & Rays have shown (as well as others) that Payroll can be beaten.....however the Comp rule has to be changed.
;)
The Yankees have a payroll roughly $70 million higher than any other team. After them, there's "groupings" of teams. The Red Sox, Mets, Tigers, White Sox, and Angels are (last year at least) around $120-$140 million. A $130 million payroll is roughly an average of $5.2 million per player, not that much more than the average player overall (compared to the roughly $8.4 million the Yankees spent per player, which is roughly double the average player). A reasonable salary cap would be in the $140 million range, and I don't see how anything lower than that is "reasonable."Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
In all honesty I don't see how a salary cap would help parity in major league baseball. The Yankees would be affected early on, but they have smart management and owners and would be back to the playoffs every year within a couple of years...kind of like whats going on in the NHL with the Red Wings
I don't think the purpose of a salary cap would be to exclude the Yankees from the playoffsQuote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
The only problem with all this salary cap talk is that we forget baseball is a business. Some owners own a team with the goal of winning. Other owners own a team with the goal of making money.
Owners won't approve anything that MAKES them spend more money.
Yup, like DeWitt of the Cardinals, wants the team to make him more money. quite clear that is the goal. field a good enough team to keep selling games out and that's it. and then you have someone like Steinbrenner that wants to win screw if the profit is there or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
I don't believe that there is a huge difference between Steinbrenner's and DeWitt's motivation. Both want to make money. The difference is that the two markets are completely different. In St.Louis, the Cardinals are the most important thing in town, and the fans will show up as long as the team is competitive. The Cardinals therefore make their choices in order to be competitive. For the Yankees, the key is to dominate the media spotlight - and that requires a whole different approach to management. They want people watching YES every night in the off-season - so they pursue top free agents and basically do everything they can to draw the attention of the fans. The approach is different because the markets are different - not because Steinbrenner has some crazy desire to win at all cost that doesn't affect any other owner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
I realize that, but when Steiny started, he definetly wanted to bring back that winning tradition. I see DeWitt doing the bear minimum to show a winning team. But you are right on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
But why did "Steiny" want to bring back the winning tradition? I think that it was because a team in NY that doesn't win isn't going to make money the way that a winning team will. The difference in money in St.Louis is nowhere near as big.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
how can you guys debate this same topic every other week??? i can't believe this is near 3 pages again lol.
I have a few ideas on how a salary cap can be implemented.
Idea #1 - Take a cue from MLS
For those who aren't in the know, MLS has a hard salary cap, but with a player exception known as the 'Beckham Rule'. All it means is that a team must abide to the cap, but can sign 1 player who won't count against it (Ala David Beckham signing with the LA Galaxy). Instead of a small cap and only one player, MLB could institute something, say $80 million, and give the exemption to maybe 3-5 players. It might help against teams like the Yanks or my beloved Red Sox from signing all the best players in baseball, and give smaller market teams like KC and Oakland a better shot at fielding a good team.
Idea #2 - Take from the rich and give to the poor
I think this would be the better of the two ideas. Take all 30 teams and put them into 1 of 3 brackets. The first bracket would be the richest teams (The Sox, Yanks, Mets, et cetera). The second bracket would be the middle-of-the-road teams (Atlanta, Houston, et cetera). And the third could be the poorest teams (Pittsburgh, Florida, et cetera). Implement a soft cap of somewhere between $80-$100 million, something that only the top 1/3 teams have a chance of going over, and for the money they go over, give maybe 3/4 of that money to the bottom 1/3 and a quarter to the middle, or something along those lines.
This may be the first time in history that the words "Steinbrenner", "crazy", and "not" have all appeared together within the same sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
Don't get me wrong. I'm not attributing any special significance to that, or anything... ;):D
The Yankee thing is silly. They won 6 titles in George's reign but also had a drought of nearly 20 years in that span. They also haven't won one since they went ape and spent wildly after 2000.
Boston? Lol, they went 86 years between titles! They spent big during most of that period, and at best, went to the WS once every decade or so.
AKA revenue sharing and luxury tax?Quote:
Originally Posted by rushfan_2112
The other 29 teams ought to send the Yankees thank you cards come to think of it. They absorbed jerks, juicers and plain old junk for the last 8 or so seasons that someone else would have been stuck with, the Yankees could at least afford to replace the busts and juicers with working parts, and can afford to work with the jerks.
Pavano, Giambi, A-Rod, K Brown, Hideki Irabu, Matsui (13mil for 9 homers last season!), Kei Igawa ($126,000,194 for 5 years, plus posting fee), Bobby Abreu got over 30 mil out of them. You could add a lot more names to this list without trying very hard.
:eek: /blink. blink./Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Wait, you're not actually trying to argue that the Yanks were just trying to be nice guys and "help out" the rest of major league baseball by signing bad contracts, are you?
LOL
I think I may have finally heard everything. ;)
No, but they inadvertently helped out. Without all that cash overflowing the vaults, some other poor sap might have been stuck with something close to those deals.Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetMedic
Kind of. According to my research, only a few teams have paid the tax, about a handful or so. Instead of having the $155 million threshold that's in place, which would only include the Yanks, lower it to about $100 million, which would cover the top 1/3 of the teams in MLB. As far as the bottom 1/3, they're all at less than $70 million, and would need most of the tax money. I would say that for teams with a payroll between $100 million and $125 million, they could be taxed maybe 10-25%. 3/4 of which could be evenly distributed between the teams with a payroll of less than $70 million, and a 1/4 of which can be distributed to the teams between $70-$100 million. A payroll between $125 million and $150 million should be taxed maybe 25-40% and a 75/25 split between the lower and middle brackets. And those over $150 million could be taxed 40-50%, and given a 75/25 split for the lower two brackets.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It should be noted that I used 2008 salaries. As far as 2009 is concerned, it's probably changed, but the principles are still the same.
I think the more pressing issue is making sure that the revenue sharing money that the lesser teams get actually gets put into the baseball team instead of pocketed.
You must have a very firm grasp of MLB's finances to come up with such exact numbersQuote:
Originally Posted by rushfan_2112
I just did a little bit of research as to where which team stood, as of 2008. More or less I'm trying to group all 30 teams into 3 equal 10 team brackets. The top 1/3 being over $100 million, the bottom 1/3 being less than $70 million, which made things easier for the purposes of this. I'm by no means an expert on finance, but at least to me it seems like a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
My point is why do you think it needs to be changed?
Some of this is spill over from other threads but,
people keep just making up numbers. But they don't know. We don't know how the Yankees finances really look. We don't know how the Pirates finances really look.
People say, "I don't want so and so on my team, he's too expensive" but they have NO IDEA about the finances for that team.
I don't know if your point was directed towards me, but I never said I think it needs to be changed. I simply came up with 2 ideas. As far as knowing what a certain teams finances are, not many people outside of a specific organization would know, because most financial records aren't released to the public. And for the record, I didn't make up any numbers, except for the numbers I suggested using, more or less figuratively speaking. Here's where I got payroll information.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ams_by_payroll
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries
http://proathletesonly.com/news/fron...r-2008-season/
http://blog.sportscolumn.com/story/2...8_MLB_Payrolls
All the numbers seem pretty consistent to me. As far as other finances, I've looked and there's no place to find them.