Some owners want salary cap in baseball...

653
10
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
PARADISE VALLEY, Ariz. -- Brewers owner Mark Attanasio was in a bike shop on the Kona coast of Hawaii's Big Island, vacationing for the holidays when hereceived an e-mail from a reporter for Bloomberg News.
The question was about the Yankees' signing of free-agent first baseman Mark Teixeira, coming on the heels of New York inking left-hander CC Sabathia,who pitched part of the 2008 season for the Brewers. The value of the two deals was $340 million.

"At the rate the Yankees are going, I'm not sure anyone can compete with them," Attanasio said in an e-mail response. "Frankly, the sportmight need a salary cap."

The comment reverberated around the country and has still had its impact among Major League Baseball owners, who are meeting here on Wednesday and Thursdayfor the first time this year. Some sympathize with Attanasio.

"I think there's a lot of owners that would like to have that right now," said A's managing partner Lew Wolff, whose team plays in a largemarket, but in an antiquated stadium.

"It's important to realize that we're playing by a certain set of rules right now," said Bob Nutting, chairman of the Pirates."We've got to find ways to succeed in the current economic environment. We're not going to use the hope of a salary cap as a crutch or as anexcuse."

Some think the Yankees spending is bad for business, while some believe it's good for baseball.

"The owners are all entitled to their opinions," Commissioner Bud Selig said on Wednesday. "I don't think it's appropriate for me tocomment on it. I can understand why some of them feel that way. We have a labor agreement that doesn't have to be negotiated for another three years.I'll comment about it then."

The fact is that a salary cap has always been a non-starter in negotiations with the MLB Players Association, which agreed to a competitive balance tax andthreshold in the collective bargaining that followed the last players' strike in 1994.

This year, the threshold for player payroll is $162 million. Last year, when it was slightly lower, the Yankees and Tigers exceeded the threshold. Becausethe Yankees repeatedly spend over the threshold, they pay at the highest rate of 40 percent on the difference between the threshold and their actual payroll.That means if they spend $200 million this year, they will be taxed 40 percent of $38 million or about $15 million, the fair market price of anothersubstantive player.

"[The tax] doesn't seem to stop them," Attanasio said on Wednesday. "But I don't blame the Yankees, I blame the system. The Yankeesare playing within the rules of the system. This isn't sour grapes. You can't blame the team so you have to change the system. They have a lot of veryintelligent business people there. I'm sure they're working within their economics."

The current Basic Agreement doesn't expire until Dec. 31, 2011. Selig's current contract as Commissioner expires a year later when he's 78 yearsold.

The fact that the union has always resisted a hard salary cap doesn't seem to faze Attanasio, who offered $100 million to Sabathia and just signedreliever Trevor Hoffman to a one-year deal that could pay him as much as $7.5 million. He projects the Brewers' payroll at $80 million.

"I'm going to keep working on it," said Attanasio, who purchased the Brewers in 2004 in the midst of what Selig is fond of touting as 16 yearsof labor peace.

Selig has been Commissioner since 1992 after purchasing the moribund Seattle Pilots and moving them to Milwaukee just in time for the 1970 season. Sittingin those two offices, Selig experienced every strike and lockout as baseball went through 25 years of labor strife. With peace the sport has grown to recordnumbers with $6.5 billion in gross revenues last season and an average $3 million player salary.

But he's been concerned since the end of the season about how the shrinking global economy might affect baseball this coming season and at theowners' meetings in New York this past November, invited former Fed chairman Paul Volcker to speak to the owners.

Owners responded by spending almost $1 billion on free agents this offseason. On Monday, with the signing of pitcher Derek Lowe by the Braves, the rest ofMLB finally surpassed the Yankees in total dollars spent. That's $491 million for 58 players as opposed to what the Yankees have spent on four: $442million.

"We've always played by the rules and we're still playing by the rules," said Lonn Trost, the Yankees chief operating officer. "Whichpart of this do these other clubs not like? Is it the revenue-sharing funds we've paid year after year? Is it all the luxury tax?

"These other clubs have taken that money. We're doing everything we can to invest in our team, our community and MLB. It's what theSteinbrenners have always done and will continue to do. No one has told us that anything we're doing is at all improper or incorrect."

Between revenue sharing and the competitive balance tax, the Yankees send about $100 million a year into baseball's coffers. On the other hand, theballclub in the Bronx might generate in excess of $500 million a year from the new Yankee Stadium, which opens this year.

"They are baseball," Wolff said. "They've not done anything differently than they've done for years. They benefit us more than theyhurt us."

And so what's good for the Yankees is good for baseball.

"I have no problem with what they've done," said Crane Kenney, the chairman of the Cubs. "They've done it within the confines of ouragreement. Look at the reality there: they've got a $1.3 billion stadium coming online. They were probably relying on Wall Street to fill a lot of thoseseats. They didn't make the playoffs for the first time in 13 years. Their reaction is probably similar to what I would do, which is you've got to puta compelling product out there when you open the doors of that new ballpark and that's what they did."

....IMO I wouldnt mind a salary cap in the game, might make things more interesting come off season or trade deadlines. However it sounds like the Leaguewould take a hit becasue of all the revenue they pull in from teams like the Yanks, Tigers, and Red Sox who spend over more than what they can for a playerscontract..

but like Bud said, he wont talk about it for another three years.
 
I would think about 25 owners would want it but the union won't budge.... Most anti-competitive league I know....oh well
 
owners like the ones in florida or kansas city wont go for it because there will also be a salary floor
 
"[The tax] doesn't seem to stop them,"

24zi3yq.gif


pimp.gif
 
Salary cap or not, low market teams have been to the world series more in the past few years then the Yankees have.

Who cares what they spend. It looks awesome on paper but will the players play to earn the paper they are receiving?
 
On Monday, with the signing of pitcher Derek Lowe by the Braves, the rest of MLB finally surpassed the Yankees in total dollars spent. That's $491 million for 58 players as opposed to what the Yankees have spent on four: $442 million.
eek.gif
laugh.gif


"They've not done anything differently than they've done for years. They benefit us more than they hurt us."

I'd have to agree with that.

The only good thing that a salary-cap would do is MAYBE keep ticket prices at a reasonable rate.
 
Salary cap or not, low market teams have been to the world series more in the past few years then the Yankees have.

Who cares what they spend. It looks awesome on paper but will the players play to earn the paper they are receiving?


^ Agreed, spending doesnt mean everything as we know....but you have a league where fans of half the teams know that if they hit the jackpot and develop afuture superstar then that star is guaranteed to bolt for the huge bucks of the major markets.

Heck back in 2007 my hometown Twins team had Johan Santana still on the hook for $13.25 million salary in 2008 and then offered him a $100 million/4 yearextension (so 5 years, $113.25 million in his pocket).....and his agent laughed at him and boom see ya time to head to NY.

That same year, 32 year old Torii Hunter (nice player, but not superstar player) supposedly gets offered around 3 years/$50 million by the Twins....and says nodice time to head to LA.....for 5 years/$90 million.

We can sit here all day and go over the plusses and minuses....but fan bases dont care about anything but having stars to watch (as well as winning). And thesestars know that when the time is up they get to have NY/Boston typically set the market and then the rest of the teams are screwed, so off they go.
 
Originally Posted by dmxfury

I would think about 25 owners would want it but the union won't budge.... Most anti-competitive league I know....oh well


8 different World Series Champs in the last 10 years. Id say thats pretty competitive.
 
Johan coming to NY. Ok.
Hunter going to LA. Ok.

I mean, some of these guys are coming from small-market teams and going to New York City and Los Angeles. I really can't fault a player for that.

Even when the Mets were struggling, we still had players coming here via free agency just because it's NY.

So even if there is a salary cap, imo players are STILL gonna be attracted to NY & LA just off of location alone.

What I'm trying to say is that fans of teams like KC, Toronto, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, St Louis, etc... should just accept the fact that those cities willmost likely always lose out in free agency.

Free agency isn't the problem. Therefore a salary-cap is not the solution.
 
NFL proves without a doubt that a salary cap will balance out the league failry.

Yes, NY and LA always gonna have athletes because they want to live there and such, but that's just it, if LA and NY have a cap at 67 million and they signtwo high priced guys, well then the other high priced players have to either play for less money, or *gasp* play for Minnesota/Milwaukie/Florida etc etc.

That is what baseball needs. They'll never ever ever ever ever get it but it's what's needed.

Take the Yankees a decade to get under a salary cap of 67 million dollars.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by dmxfury

I would think about 25 owners would want it but the union won't budge.... Most anti-competitive league I know....oh well


8 different World Series Champs in the last 10 years. Id say thats pretty competitive.
I don't see the Yankees winning it every year (although we should
grin.gif
)

Don't baseball pay a tax back to the league that should get distributed among the other teams?
 
^^ Naw, I think comparing the NFL salary cap to one for MLB is like apples & oranges.

The effect of an MLB cap would be more like the NBA cap.

I say this b/c salaries in the NFL are structured much differently than in baseball. The signing of ONE player to a huge deal in football doesn't have thesame effect as signing a guy to a mega deal in baseball or basketball. Simply because you can cut players in the NFL w/o having to finish paying them what theyoriginally signed for. Also, there are FAR more players per team in football than in baseball or basketball. Meaning that the chances of you getting that oneplayer to drastically change your team into a winner severely decreases.

So I don't really think it's the cap that keeps football so competitive.

Again, I think a cap in baseball would be like it is in basketball.
 
^
Ok, I hear that. Makes sense. But it could also change based on HOW the cap is set up. 25 players in baseball is still double what basketball has, so whileyou're right, it's not the NFL, it's also more then basketball.

Either way, using the Mets as an example, with a salary cap, they don't get to have Delgado, Johan, Reyes, Wright, AND Beltran. I'm sorry, butthey'd get 2 of em, or 3 or however they work the contracts.

So now at least two of those guys need to go work in smaller market cities.

Now reduce the Yankees.

They can't have A-Rod, Jeter, Sabathia, Burnett, Rivera, and Texeira anymore, they only get 3.

So again, 3 more elite level guys need to go play elsewhere. And now the league is more balanced and evened out, and I've only broken down TWO teams!!
eek.gif


Reason I used NFL is because ALL of their teams, small market or otherwise, have the ability to have "marquee" guys. The Packers always had Favre,the Bills always have someone, the Chargers, 9ers, Chiefs, Seahawks, whoever. They would have up and down years off course based on schedule, poor/gooddrafting what have you, but teams don't usually go multiple decades of sucking.

The Pirates have sucked for 15 years now. The Steelers have been upper teir for the same 15 years. Same market.

Royals have sucked for 20 years. Cheifs, are up and down depending on how their managment is done, not on being outbid for players by the Jets or Giants.
 
Ahh, but the Pirates have dealt with alot of young talented players that have developed into good players in this league.

I have always viewed them as the A's of the National League. Meaning, if the A's have had as much bad luck as the pirates have, they would be in thesame position. Good young players, Declining Veterans who can give you a good year, maybe two, and pitching. Now, pirates pitching has not been stellar to saythe least which is why they have had bad seasons. Also, their veterans that they go after (Matt Morris) have never been able to give them the years that theyexpect them to.

They have a very young team right now and are still trying to move Jack Wilson although they may not want to. The pirates have just been dealt a bad hand as oflate but I think looking at the youth that they have, they can develop into that A's team structure and just go on two or three year runs and usher in newplayers from the farm while trading "prime" players to get more prospects in return. WHOO!
 
on my phone so hard to type a lot but WS Champ is different then overall competitive nature of the game
 
Johan coming to NY. Ok.
Hunter going to LA. Ok.

I mean, some of these guys are coming from small-market teams and going to New York City and Los Angeles. I really can't fault a player for that.

Even when the Mets were struggling, we still had players coming here via free agency just because it's NY.

So even if there is a salary cap, imo players are STILL gonna be attracted to NY & LA just off of location alone.

What I'm trying to say is that fans of teams like KC, Toronto, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, St Louis, etc... should just accept the fact that those cities will most likely always lose out in free agency.

Free agency isn't the problem. Therefore a salary-cap is not the solution.
I'll respectfully disagree. If you are a winner players come. We see that in all sports. "Small market" teams that are goodorganizations still manage to land FA's in football, basketball, etc. Sure as humans some guys will want to get to LA or whatever.....but what we aretalking here is CURRENT players on these teams up for extensions (which was my case with Hunter and Santana). Not full free agents. Torii Hunter was nevergoing to land in Minnesota if he was coming from say the Mets. But he was a current Twin who was with the team since he was 18, loved playing there and lovedhis teammates. No team in baseball was going to pay him 90 mil and none of his offers were close to that. Then LAA swoops in in the 11th hour (even Hunteradmitted they were not even in the picture and he never spoke to them during the process) and gives him that 90 mil and Hunter says, "LA? And 90 mil whenother teams are givin me less years and 60 mil? Done."

Baseball is a summer sport where you play for 7 months and then you have the rest of the year off. Dudes dont care that much what area they are in. (if youeliminate the money aspect obviously).

Thats just my take, I can see the other side. I would LOVE to see a cap in baseball, i think it's the most screwed up system in all of sports and have beensayin that for years. But i dont know the true solution, much like i cannot fault teams for spending or small teams for not spending. But it's ugly, andthe system to me stinks.
 
dmxfury-

Lets be fair though, just saying. If you take it from the Yankees perspective, they do this for that WS ring.

So, from my angle (especially being a Mets fan) I take it as that.

I know Competitve play and playing for a WS is different, fully agree with you but when I made the intial comment about the small markets teams, that is whereI got the WS part cause that is all the dark side cares about.

I agree with you but I do think the looks good on paper notion can apply right now. No one knows if this Yankees team will dominate for sure. Maybe the raystopple both them and boston again. It sucks that teams like the yankees, boston, Mets, etc etc spend and spend where other teams can't but I thinkcompetitve nature sometimes picks up when small market teams face the big market teams.
 
I think a salary cap would force all teams to develop there farm system much better because they wouldn't be able to sign anyone they wanted....
 
Originally Posted by VC3FAN

Ahh, but the Pirates have dealt with alot of young talented players that have developed into good players in this league.

I have always viewed them as the A's of the National League. Meaning, if the A's have had as much bad luck as the pirates have, they would be in the same position. Good young players, Declining Veterans who can give you a good year, maybe two, and pitching. Now, pirates pitching has not been stellar to say the least which is why they have had bad seasons. Also, their veterans that they go after (Matt Morris) have never been able to give them the years that they expect them to.

They have a very young team right now and are still trying to move Jack Wilson although they may not want to. The pirates have just been dealt a bad hand as of late but I think looking at the youth that they have, they can develop into that A's team structure and just go on two or three year runs and usher in new players from the farm while trading "prime" players to get more prospects in return. WHOO!
2003.

Cubs are in a pennant race, they lose Corey Patterson to injury and need a guy. They call the Pirates who have Kenny Lofton.

Cubs and Pirates work out a deal to get Lofton, and while they're working on it, the Pirates say "hey, you can have Aramis Ramirez too."

The Cubs organiztion damn near died laughing.

Why did the Pirates do that? Because they knew they couldn't re-sign him. Even though he was a young promising guy who had already proven he could play,they knew they couldn't afford him and gave him away for a few extra prospects. That ain't bad breaks, that's money haves and have nots. So theytry to add extra prospects and hope to strike it rich so to speak like the Rays did last season. By strike it rich, I mean to have all your young players"get it" all at the same time and have a competitive year.
 
Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by VC3FAN

Ahh, but the Pirates have dealt with alot of young talented players that have developed into good players in this league.

I have always viewed them as the A's of the National League. Meaning, if the A's have had as much bad luck as the pirates have, they would be in the same position. Good young players, Declining Veterans who can give you a good year, maybe two, and pitching. Now, pirates pitching has not been stellar to say the least which is why they have had bad seasons. Also, their veterans that they go after (Matt Morris) have never been able to give them the years that they expect them to.

They have a very young team right now and are still trying to move Jack Wilson although they may not want to. The pirates have just been dealt a bad hand as of late but I think looking at the youth that they have, they can develop into that A's team structure and just go on two or three year runs and usher in new players from the farm while trading "prime" players to get more prospects in return. WHOO!
2003.

Cubs are in a pennant race, they lose Corey Patterson to injury and need a guy. They call the Pirates who have Kenny Lofton.

Cubs and Pirates work out a deal to get Lofton, and while they're working on it, the Pirates say "hey, you can have Aramis Ramirez too."

The Cubs organiztion damn near died laughing.

Why did the Pirates do that? Because they knew they couldn't re-sign him. Even though he was a young promising guy who had already proven he could play, they knew they couldn't afford him and gave him away for a few extra prospects. That ain't bad breaks, that's money haves and have nots. So they try to add extra prospects and hope to strike it rich so to speak like the Rays did last season. By strike it rich, I mean to have all your young players "get it" all at the same time and have a competitive year.
Exactly - by the time one prospect (McClouth for example) hits his prime, if the rest of the team isn't close to being good enough to make atitle run, they can't afford to give him his big contract when he's due and so they get more value out of trading him for more prospects and justcontinue hoping to time something up.

They can't afford to throw big money at somebody while they wait for other people to get "there"... it's all about timing. If they getclose, they will spend a bit of money and make a run at it and hopefully be able to put a good team together for a few years.. but it's pointless to try tocompete with the big markets who will throw crazy bucks at people unless they're very close to making it..

And right now - this is still a 70 win team, tops.
 
Like the Oakland A's.

Yes, most of their talent started to decline but it is the same situation.

2003 was a robbery and yes, the pirates would not have been able to afford Aramis but teams like the A's go through the same situation and still bounceback. The Twins go through it as well and can be competitive.
 
Well look at it this way, if a salary cap were to ever be imposed, a lot of these teams (Pirates, A's) would no longer be flea markets.
 
Back
Top Bottom