MLB Salary Cap

[rudel.dietrich]

The NHL salary cap is not a good example here.
That was done to keep teams from eating themselves alive with bad buisness deals and not realizing how low their sport stands on the sports horizen, not for the sake of competative balence.

My biggest beef with the salary cap is that it punishes fans who fill stadiums each game and buy lots and lots of merchandise and season ticket holders.
You can make twice and much as another team but you can only spend so much of that or are forced to share it amongst the league.

It has killed my interest in the NFL.
I dont watch the NBA for other reasons but a salary cap there does not help.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

It also takes away the excuse by the poor teams that they can't possibly compete so why bother.

Preventing bad teams from making excuses is a pretty lousy reason to overhaul a revenue structure.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Preventing bad teams from making excuses is a pretty lousy reason to overhaul a revenue structure.

It's a great reason, actually. The fans of the "small" markets need to realize that if their team sucks it's because their owner or GM is incompetent, not because they "can't compete". That's one of the things that I love about the NBA. Clippers fans could never say that they were getting the short shrift because they were the #2 team in LA and couldn't afford the likes of Shaq.

FWIW, though, I don't think baseball and basketball are very comparable sports in this regard. In basketball you can get 3 really good players and round out your team with useful role-players and make a dynasty out of them. Baseball, you need at least twice and probably 3 times that number. Because of that, the nature of the game is just going to be more transitory. And football is going to be even moreso.

I'm pretty much on the fence about a salary cap. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. The transformation of Seattle from a small baseball market to a medium to large one has pretty much convinced me that any town can change if they do things the right way. At the same time, I'm really tired of people whining about how the Pirates "never had a chance". That last bit is true, but it's true because they're run by monkeys. You never hear about people whining about the chances of small-market teams in the NFL.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by mlyons

A limit on spending isn't going to make bad teams good; it's going to make very good teams not quite as good. If MLB had had a $100 million salary cap this season, would the Royals, Devil Rays, Cubs, or Pirates have done any better? In other words, I don't see how a salary cap makes it any easier for the league's perennial losers to compete with the big money clubs. It just makes it easier for the Red Sox to compete with the Yankees and the Braves to compete with the Mets.

It also spreads out the really good players a little more because many would rather make 15 mil on KC than 5 mil in NY. And it will make the one division that really needs it, the AL East, more than a two team race.

[darkenigma510]

It will be interesting to see how the cap works in the NHL. So far, it has helped with player movement a lot and possibly allowing teams to rebuild quicker. Buts its early still.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by bababui

It also spreads out the really good players a little more because many would rather make 15 mil on KC than 5 mil in NY.

KC isn't giving $15 million to anyone now; why would they start doing it just because New York can't give out as many $15 million contracts? Those players are going to be grabbed by the teams that can afford those contracts, teams like LA and Chicago.

Originally Posted by bababui

And it will make the one division that really needs it, the AL East, more than a two team race.

Unless the salary cap is set at some stupid level like $80 million, that's simply not the case. The Yankees and Red Sox will still be able to outspend everyone else in the division. It'll just make the difference between the Yankees and Red Sox smaller. How is that going to help Toronto?

[disposableheros]

if im going to vote for a salary cap, it will require a simultaneous implementation of a salary floor of half the cap. in total, it will solve some problems, but create others that are just as bad, so i vote no.

[attackemu]

I also think players ought to be able to get the market value for their services and not be artificially overpaid or underpaid because of caps and floors.

Originally Posted by Johnny Thrift

Also, I love how folks cited the nice, even number 7 when looking at past championships. That couldn't possibly have been done to ignore the Yankees mini-dynasty of the late 90s.

BAN!

Actually, I just picked 2000 as a starting point to make it easy. In fact, including the 90s would just make the point more stark. Sure, you'd get the Yankees but you'd also leave the NBA champs list virtually unchanged (only adding the Rockets) and you'd add back to back Super Bowls for the Broncos and a whole slew of Super Bowls for the Cowboys.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

It's a great reason, actually. The fans of the "small" markets need to realize that if their team sucks it's because their owner or GM is incompetent, not because they "can't compete". That's one of the things that I love about the NBA. Clippers fans could never say that they were getting the short shrift because they were the #2 team in LA and couldn't afford the likes of Shaq.

Why is it better for the fans that they can blame the sucky team on the GM instead of the salary structure? The team is still sucky. Clippers should be a bad example for NBA, since they've been a shining example of how salary cap wouldn't help bad teams a bit, and revenue sharing encourages bad owners to just tank for a long time.

[dudeosu]

Originally Posted by bababui

The standard of evidence and logic is much stricter in a college thesis than journalism. And they also tell you where they get their facts. Why must we take this with a grain of salt?

Oh I agree that it's better than journalism and much better than most conclusions you'd find out there. I just said that because it's not an independently commissioned study with multiple inputs on the conclusions. It's one guy who may have a bias.

But still a very good source.

[crackpott]

My take on things from a few years ago:

http://www.ballparkanalysis.com/articles/013004.htm

[JDOldSchool]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

I would quit watching pro baseball if a salary cap was adopted

I think I would, too.

It's watered down the NFL tremendously.

[rocknfire7]

what about a minimum salary instead of a cap?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

if im going to vote for a salary cap, it will require a simultaneous implementation of a salary floor of half the cap. in total, it will solve some problems, but create others that are just as bad, so i vote no.

The question of the floor is part of why I'm pretty torn on this issue. On the one hand, yes, absolutely, the cap shouldn't be used only to keep teams from spending lots of money. It's got to be there to ensure both the players and the owners that the percentage of revenue allocated to each side remains relatively static.

On the other hand, why force a team like the Pirates to spend that money on a mid-range vet who's not really going to help them win and not, say, on their farm system? Personally, I think that a really good revenue sharing package like the one the NFL has is the better long-term answer. I don't think you'll see the large-market teams agreeing to this without a salary cap, though.

[attackemu]

Originally Posted by me, a few posts up

I also think players ought to be able to get the market value for their services and not be artificially overpaid or underpaid because of caps and floors.

And, besides that, the player pool ain't gonna change any just because there's a salary floor instituted. All it would do is force teams into spending three or four million a year on Bo Hart or somebody. The idea that spending=winning, really, is just wrong. Spending smart = winning, and what better way to guarantee teams to blow lots of money stupidly than to force a minimum payroll?

[Skipaway]

It's a good thing for spending to correlate with winning well. It's only bad when spending is the only major factor of winning.


If winning is related to spending, it means money is well-spent. It means winning players are getting paid more. In what world won't you like that to happen?

On the other hand, the ability to distinguish winning players and put them together as a team would serve as a way to prevent teams from simply buying championships.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

The question of the floor is part of why I'm pretty torn on this issue. On the one hand, yes, absolutely, the cap shouldn't be used only to keep teams from spending lots of money. It's got to be there to ensure both the players and the owners that the percentage of revenue allocated to each side remains relatively static.

On the other hand, why force a team like the Pirates to spend that money on a mid-range vet who's not really going to help them win and not, say, on their farm system? Personally, I think that a really good revenue sharing package like the one the NFL has is the better long-term answer. I don't think you'll see the large-market teams agreeing to this without a salary cap, though.

is the money they are not spending on the major league club being diverted to their farm system? or is it being diverted into their bank accounts?

i think the idea of a floor helps the cap hitters feel like the money they put into the pool is actually being spent on the game, rather than being spent to buy a 3rd or 4th home in Fiji for some other already wealthy individual.

of course, this assumes a revenue sharing function is a part of the salary cap/floor puzzle.