Should Baseball have a salary cap?

[Jeffy25]

I say absolutely not.

[robinhoodnik]

Absolutely not. No. Never.
Want money? Win.

[KowboyKoop]

Total organizational spending cap and basement on all things baseball related. Big, big, big number.

[mtg712]

i say yes but not a cap on how much they can spend but how little.

[RickD]

NO, NO, No!

[dickay]

I say YES YES YES....

If thats what it will take to stop seeing this same poll/discussion every other week in these threads.

[kenny1234]

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.

[filihok]

I say YES YES YES....

If thats what it will take to stop seeing this same poll/discussion every other week in these threads.

lol

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

[justanewguy]

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.

[filihok]

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 floor

[justanewguy]

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 floor

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.

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.

[TheNamelessPoet]

YEars ago I would ahve said yes.... but with what florida does with a sub 30 million payroll is outstanding.

[DarthJaker]

Just for the Yankees

[HoustonGM]

I say YES YES YES....

If thats what it will take to stop seeing this same poll/discussion every other week in these threads.

LOL. Really, this is like the fourth poll on the exact same question since Tex signed.

lol

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 think they go hand-in-hand, and I'm (now) against both.

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.

[HoustonGM]

Just for the Yankees

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.