Some owners want salary cap in baseball...

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

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.

Exactly. That's the deal with a cap, those superstars have to play somewhere.

If you have 30 teams and say 50 "prime" free agents, then at least every team can get one, and a couple will have two and the big big market teamsmight be able to squeeze in 3. But those big big market teams will suffer depth wise from doing so. \

If the Pirates were able to have Aramis, then develop a McClouth and get a couple number 3 type pitchers, maybe a solid closer, now you have a team that cancompete and if a couple prospects come thru, hey, you run for the division/wild card and have hope to build off of.

Maybe they win some games of meaning, and now a mid level free agent or two decide to sign there as opposed to just automatically heading to NY or LA as it isnow.

I know that's a lot of what ifs and what not, but I think you guys see the point I'm tryin to make.

 

[shuges]

Excellent points all of them.

Make no mistake, I hear your argument and see where you guys are coming from.

But I just think it's unfortunate that some fans are being brainwashed into using this as an excuse. (Not saying any of you in particular).

Why do you think only 1 or 2 owners have come out and whined about getting a cap? I'm not saying it's for sure... But I'm guessing it's becausea majority of these owners are content to overcharge their fans for tickets/concessions while not doing much else to build a winner. And then the "oh, wecan't compete with the Yanks" excuse gets conveniently used when the fans start questioning ownership.

Let's subtract free-agency for a second. How many of these teams even develop their own talent via the farm system that would be worth signing to alucrative long term deal once the player hits the bigs? And not just 1 or two players. But a handful of players. The Marlins and the Rays come to mind. Oaklandtoo. Brewers maybe. You guys say the Pirates as well.

So using your example (Yanks only get to sign 3 big names), why should the other 3 names be forced to sign with organizations who aren't doing anything towin? Why should teams play the game of pretending to do something for the fans (in signing big names), if they are only doing it just for good PR?

Just look at basketball and all of the failed marriages between teams who didn't really want the player or players who didn't really want to go to thatteam: Maggette, Richard Jefferson, Shawn Marion, Jason Kidd to an extent, Josh Childress, Turiaf.... But those players went there or got sent there mainly b/cthe team that had them couldn't afford to keep them.

A cap forces good teams to break up. And it also puts guys out of work. How many players in the NBA aren't even playing right now b/c of the cap? Quickly,off the top... Boykins, PJ Brown, Horry, Krstic for a minute... I remember back when Kenny Anderson and Rod Strickland couldn't find work in the Lbasically because of the cap. Why penalize a team for diligent work? If I build a contender, why am I forced to let one of those players go in 2 years becauseI can't "afford him" due to the cap? (Think Hawks or Blazers in a year or two).

Going back to CP's example, when those 3 names can't sign b/c all other teams have their rosters set, then what? We lose players to overseas.

Originally Posted by RyGuy45

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, and the system to me stinks.

Agreed. I don't know what the true solution is either.

 

[nycknicks105]

Originally Posted by VC3FAN

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?

Yeap

 

[craftsy21]

If I build a contender, why am I forced to let one of those players go in 2 years because I can't "afford him" due to the cap? (Think Hawks or Blazers in a year or two).


It works the other way too though - as i said with the Pirates, if they develop a player for 5 years and he becomes a free agent, they can't afford to signhim if the yanks come in with their bottomless checking account. Even if they were willing to pay him the market rate, somebody would just outbid them if theycould afford to and then it just becomes a situation where the teams with the biggest built-in markets are going to always get the best players.

I'm definitely not one that thinks a cap solves everything - i don't even necessarily believe a cap is good for baseball, and i think a lot of thepirates and other small market teams problems is their management.. I was just pointing out that the situation goes both ways. While I see your pointentirely, you have to remember the flip side to this as well.

 

[Bend_The_Knee]

they could talk about this all they want, players union wont agree to it

 

[CP1708]

Shuges and Craftsy I see what you're saying. I agree that a cap won't jut totally fix things, it's merely just the beginning. I think RyGuymentioned that we would also need a salary floor as well. So if the cap is 67 million, then the floor has to be say 50 million, or something like that.

That way a team such as the Royals can develop a prospect, sign him to a decent deal, add other players/prospects and hope that a couple of them pan out, andas you said, if they get 4 or 5 of them, and have no money left to sign them, maybe they could adopt a sort of Larry Bird type cap where you can spend over thecap to keep your homegrown talent.

I'd be ok with that big time for a team like the Yankees in the mid 90's when they brought up Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Petitte, etc. In those cases,I'd be more then happy to have them sign those players above books so that teams could form a nucleus and go from there. This way it depends on themanagement drafting/developing and signing the right players and being smart more then just opening someone's checkbook and adding 6 free agents.

Obvioulsy, it would be a combo of things to fix what's wrong with baseball. They are the only league where the players have all the leverage all the time. That's not good for ANY business. Hell, I'd give my self a raise right now if that was how my job was run.

 

[paul is on tilt]

Originally Posted by SHUGES

Let's subtract free-agency for a second. How many of these teams even develop their own talent via the farm system that would be worth signing to a lucrative long term deal once the player hits the bigs? And not just 1 or two players. But a handful of players. The Marlins and the Rays come to mind. Oakland too. Brewers maybe. You guys say the Pirates as well.

IMO, if there is a cap, it'll force those teams to scout/draft better, put more effort into their farm systems if they can't depend on theFA market for their talent. Those teams that you listed, SHUGES, are all small market teams. They're forced tooperate that way. They've put the time and effort into their scouts/farm system and that's why they produce players.

Originally Posted by SHUGES

A cap forces good teams to break up. And it also puts guys out of work. How many players in the NBA aren't even playing right now b/c of the cap? Quickly, off the top... Boykins, PJ Brown, Horry, Krstic for a minute... I remember back when Kenny Anderson and Rod Strickland couldn't find work in the L basically because of the cap. Why penalize a team for diligent work? If I build a contender, why am I forced to let one of those players go in 2 years because I can't "afford him" due to the cap? (Think Hawks or Blazers in a year or two).

Going back to CP's example, when those 3 names can't sign b/c all other teams have their rosters set, then what? We lose players to overseas.

Wasn't there talk like the talent in the MLB was diluted because teams were forced to bring up players that were not ready for the majors? Idoubt that there would be people out of work because of a cap being imposed. If anything, it would be like putting the players in their proper roles. Playerswho aren't ready for the majors get sent down to triple-A and those who are qualified stay in the majors.

Also, let me get this out there... I also believe that a salary cap will not solve everything, but it can be a step in the right direction IMO.

 

[ooiron manoo]

A salary cap would also make teams look into player development. Like someone mentioned earlier, the NFL Draft has a lot of weight. If a team does not draftwell, there will be repercussions.

The Yankees player development system is garbage, and they get away with it. Think of the holes they have to fill if they get guys from their system. Theywill only have the best second baseman in baseball Robinson Cano (

),one of the best OF prospects Melky Cabrera (

), and two future Aces inPhil Hughes (

) and Ian Kennedy (

). Oh yeah, can't forget franchise savior, Joba Chamberlain (

).

They are playing within the system, and they do have the most resources.

If there is a salary cap, there also has to be a salary floor.

 

[shuges]

Originally Posted by CP1708

I think RyGuy mentioned that we would also need a salary floor as well. So if the cap is 67 million, then the floor has to be say 50 million, or something like that.

In theory, that's a good idea. But let's look at last year's salaries:


Baseball Total and Average Payrolls, 2008
[table][tr][td]
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
[/td] [td]Team[/td] [td]Total payroll[/td] [td]Average salary[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Yankees[/td] [td]$209,081,579[/td] [td]$6,744,567[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Tigers[/td] [td]$138,685,197[/td] [td]$4,622,840[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Mets[/td] [td]$138,293,378[/td] [td]$4,609,779[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Red Sox[/td] [td]$133,440,037[/td] [td]$4,765,716[/td] [/tr][tr][td]White Sox[/td] [td]$121,152,667[/td] [td]$4,487,136[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Angels[/td] [td]$119,216,333[/td] [td]$4,110,908[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Cubs[/td] [td]$118,595,833[/td] [td]$4,392,438[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Dodgers[/td] [td]$118,536,038[/td] [td]$4,233,430[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Mariners[/td] [td]$117,993,982[/td] [td]$4,538,230[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Braves[/td] [td]$102,424,018[/td] [td]$3,414,134[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Cardinals[/td] [td]$100,624,450[/td] [td]$3,049,226[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Blue Jays[/td] [td]$98,641,957[/td] [td]$3,522,927[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Phillies[/td] [td]$98,269,881[/td] [td]$3,388,617[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Astros[/td] [td]$88,930,415[/td] [td]$3,293,719[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Brewers[/td] [td]$81,004,167[/td] [td]$2,793,247[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Indians[/td] [td]$78,970,067[/td] [td]$3,037,310[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Giants[/td] [td]$76,904,500[/td] [td]$2,651,879[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Reds[/td] [td]$74,277,695[/td] [td]$2,971,108[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Padres[/td] [td]$73,677,617[/td] [td]$2,376,697[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Rockies[/td] [td]$68,655,500[/td] [td]$2,640,596[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Rangers[/td] [td]$68,239,551[/td] [td]$2,353,088[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Orioles[/td] [td]$67,196,248[/td] [td]$2,099,883[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Diamondbacks[/td] [td]$66,202,713[/td] [td]$2,364,383[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Twins[/td] [td]$62,182,767[/td] [td]$2,487,311[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Royals[/td] [td]$58,245,500[/td] [td]$2,240,212[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Nationals[/td] [td]$54,961,000[/td] [td]$1,895,207[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Pirates[/td] [td]$49,365,283[/td] [td]$1,898,665[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Athletics[/td] [td]$47,967,126[/td] [td]$1,713,112[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Rays[/td] [td]$43,820,598[/td] [td]$1,460,687[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Marlins[/td] [td]$21,836,500[/td] [td]$661,712[/td] [/tr][/table]


If the floor is 50 mil, you still have 4 teams who aren't even hitting that number. So then what? Drop the floor to say 40 mil? 30 mil?? How unfair is thatto the rest of teams having to appease to the Marlins?
Now it can be argued that the Marlins have enough money to spend to meet a 50 mil floor. But that's exactly the point. If they HAVE the money, why are theynot spending it to improve the team? Why are the Yanks, Mets, Sawx, Cubs, etc criticized for doing just that... improving their team?

Originally Posted by CP1708

That way a team such as the Royals can develop a prospect, sign him to a decent deal, add other players/prospects and hope that a couple of them pan out, and as you said, if they get 4 or 5 of them, and have no money left to sign them, maybe they could adopt a sort of Larry Bird type cap where you can spend over the cap to keep your homegrown talent.

I'd be ok with that big time for a team like the Yankees in the mid 90's when they brought up Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Petitte, etc. In those cases, I'd be more then happy to have them sign those players above books so that teams could form a nucleus and go from there. This way it depends on the management drafting/developing and signing the right players and being smart more then just opening someone's checkbook and adding 6 free agents.

Another idea that sounds good in theory. But there's a way around that too: sign & trade.

I do admit that if a cap was introduced that this theory should still be included though. I've always liked the idea of a team getting some sort ofexclusive advantage to keep their own player.

Originally Posted by Paul Is On Tilt

IMO, if there is a cap, it'll force those teams to scout/draft better, put more effort into their farm systems if they can't depend on the FA market for their talent. Those teams that you listed, SHUGES, are all small market teams. They're forced to operate that way. They've put the time and effort into their scouts/farm system and that's why they produce players.

Agreed. It's no wonder that the bottom 4 teams on that list have a plethora of grade A talent.

And Craftsy, we pretty much are agreeing on a lot of points as well.

 

[651akathepaul]

Originally Posted by VC3FAN

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?

That's on point. It's exactly why I could careless about the big spenders. They might win once every ten years. Small market teams own baseball becausethey do it the right way and the best way if you are trying to build a successful team. And that way is through the farm system. The great Yankees team of thelate 90's was a team built mainly through players that were brought along in the minors. Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera allcame up that way. Mix in the occasional players via trade and not big time free agency a la Paul O'neil, Tino Martinez, among others and you get your teamthat fits a certain mold and has chemistry. When you throw a bunch of stars together, It most likely won't work out. Most people don't realize thatabout the Yankees.



Most of the time you lose a star to big spenders, but you have someone just as capable (maybe in a few years) that takes his place. It's cyclical.

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by SHUGES

Originally Posted by CP1708

I think RyGuy mentioned that we would also need a salary floor as well. So if the cap is 67 million, then the floor has to be say 50 million, or something like that.

In theory, that's a good idea. But let's look at last year's salaries:


Baseball Total and Average Payrolls, 2008
[table][tr][td]
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
[/td] [td]Team[/td] [td]Total payroll[/td] [td]Average salary[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Yankees[/td] [td]$209,081,579[/td] [td]$6,744,567[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Tigers[/td] [td]$138,685,197[/td] [td]$4,622,840[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Mets[/td] [td]$138,293,378[/td] [td]$4,609,779[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Red Sox[/td] [td]$133,440,037[/td] [td]$4,765,716[/td] [/tr][tr][td]White Sox[/td] [td]$121,152,667[/td] [td]$4,487,136[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Angels[/td] [td]$119,216,333[/td] [td]$4,110,908[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Cubs[/td] [td]$118,595,833[/td] [td]$4,392,438[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Dodgers[/td] [td]$118,536,038[/td] [td]$4,233,430[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Mariners[/td] [td]$117,993,982[/td] [td]$4,538,230[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Braves[/td] [td]$102,424,018[/td] [td]$3,414,134[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Cardinals[/td] [td]$100,624,450[/td] [td]$3,049,226[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Blue Jays[/td] [td]$98,641,957[/td] [td]$3,522,927[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Phillies[/td] [td]$98,269,881[/td] [td]$3,388,617[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Astros[/td] [td]$88,930,415[/td] [td]$3,293,719[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Brewers[/td] [td]$81,004,167[/td] [td]$2,793,247[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Indians[/td] [td]$78,970,067[/td] [td]$3,037,310[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Giants[/td] [td]$76,904,500[/td] [td]$2,651,879[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Reds[/td] [td]$74,277,695[/td] [td]$2,971,108[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Padres[/td] [td]$73,677,617[/td] [td]$2,376,697[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Rockies[/td] [td]$68,655,500[/td] [td]$2,640,596[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Rangers[/td] [td]$68,239,551[/td] [td]$2,353,088[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Orioles[/td] [td]$67,196,248[/td] [td]$2,099,883[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Diamondbacks[/td] [td]$66,202,713[/td] [td]$2,364,383[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Twins[/td] [td]$62,182,767[/td] [td]$2,487,311[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Royals[/td] [td]$58,245,500[/td] [td]$2,240,212[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Nationals[/td] [td]$54,961,000[/td] [td]$1,895,207[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Pirates[/td] [td]$49,365,283[/td] [td]$1,898,665[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Athletics[/td] [td]$47,967,126[/td] [td]$1,713,112[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Rays[/td] [td]$43,820,598[/td] [td]$1,460,687[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Marlins[/td] [td]$21,836,500[/td] [td]$661,712[/td] [/tr][/table]


If the floor is 50 mil, you still have 4 teams who aren't even hitting that number. So then what? Drop the floor to say 40 mil? 30 mil?? How unfair is that to the rest of teams having to appease to the Marlins?
Now it can be argued that the Marlins have enough money to spend to meet a 50 mil floor. But that's exactly the point. If they HAVE the money, why are they not spending it to improve the team? Why are the Yanks, Mets, Sawx, Cubs, etc criticized for doing just that... improving their team?

Originally Posted by CP1708

That way a team such as the Royals can develop a prospect, sign him to a decent deal, add other players/prospects and hope that a couple of them pan out, and as you said, if they get 4 or 5 of them, and have no money left to sign them, maybe they could adopt a sort of Larry Bird type cap where you can spend over the cap to keep your homegrown talent.

I'd be ok with that big time for a team like the Yankees in the mid 90's when they brought up Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Petitte, etc. In those cases, I'd be more then happy to have them sign those players above books so that teams could form a nucleus and go from there. This way it depends on the management drafting/developing and signing the right players and being smart more then just opening someone's checkbook and adding 6 free agents.

Another idea that sounds good in theory. But there's a way around that too: sign & trade.

I do admit that if a cap was introduced that this theory should still be included though. I've always liked the idea of a team getting some sort of exclusive advantage to keep their own player.

Originally Posted by Paul Is On Tilt

IMO, if there is a cap, it'll force those teams to scout/draft better, put more effort into their farm systems if they can't depend on the FA market for their talent. Those teams that you listed, SHUGES, are all small market teams. They're forced to operate that way. They've put the time and effort into their scouts/farm system and that's why they produce players.

Agreed. It's no wonder that the bottom 4 teams on that list have a plethora of grade A talent.

And Craftsy, we pretty much are agreeing on a lot of points as well.

Shiiiiiiiiii.......after looking at those numbers, we have more work to do then I imagined.

No appeasing anyone, if the floor is 50 mil, then the team needs to get up to that point, period. However, now that I see all the money, I now know whyplayers don't want the cap, it caps their money as well, not just the teams.

Look at the totals there, there's way more money being spent then 32 teams times 67 million. The cap would need to be like 75 and salaries would comecrashing to earth. A-Rod wouldn't be getting 30 mil a year no way no how. So instead of guys getting 200 million dollar deals, they'd just have tosettle for good ol fashioned 100 million dollar deals.

If the cap was 75, Yankees would have to cut 134 million off their payroll. Damn near could have two more teams for that much.

Looking at those numbers, I honestly see no way in hell that they will ever get it back under control.

 

[RyGuy45]

I know the Yanks spending gets the big coverage from the national media, but trust me the Marlins and other bottom feeder teams are ripped up and down too. Ibelieve last year the Yanks had 3 players each making more money than the entire Marlins team. And the Marlins also get pretty nice revenue/tax checks from MLBtoo. You are going to have the big spenders and you are going to have the lowballers. But i think you still need to have that cap floor of say 50 mil. If youcant "make it" at that level (while also receiving free money) then well guess what your organization should either move or fold because it aintworking.

At any rate I think the system stinks, I dont know how to exactly fix it where both sides would agree, and I also dont see it ever happening anyway. But ithink there are certain factors you can pinpoint that have to start happening. We need to keep remembering that this is only going to get worse. Big Texgetting $180 mil only means next year's gets more, Borris has higher benchmarks to use, and so on and so on. And these players are told by their unions notto turn down one dime as their responsibility to the union and future contracts....so you get players who may want to sign cheaper with their home teams butfeel pressured to take that extra $15 million and they decide I better jump. The agents run everything, including the unions...and they do not care about onething other than the $$$.

You really have to sit back and look at how things are now and laugh....for the last 3-4 years it has been average players getting $60+ mil contracts,"pretty good" players now getting paid $13 mil a year, and superstar players telling their current teams not to insult them by only offering $100million.

 

[frankie valentino]

There'd have to be a salary floor, and the salary cap would be at about 110 million (relative to what the nba salary and nfl cap is).
Smaller percentage of revenue sharing, other teams need to stop getting rich Yankee fitted sales.
No more public funding for stadiums. You're on the same playing field as all the other teams now, stop saying you have to choose between players or a newfacility.

 

[vc3fan]

Hey, throughout all of the disagreements and agreements we all have, I still wouldn't mind a job with the Yankees.

Dollar bill toilet paper, coasters made out of quarters, I mean anything to involve throwing away money, I am down to work with.

But truthfully, Everyone here makes great points towards this issue. The main thing though is the players union. I think they would say yes to a cap but say wewill sit in on the salary figure. From there it would fall apart because the union would disagree on the numbers and just proving that it would never be ableto work.

 

[frankie valentino]

Originally Posted by VC3FAN

Hey, throughout all of the disagreements and agreements we all have, I still wouldn't mind a job with the Yankees.

Dollar bill toilet paper, coasters made out of quarters, I mean anything to involve throwing away money, I am down to work with.

But they make more money...

 

[scuse7]

I want to see a minimum salary. Teams like the Yankees use their resources and if they don't. Where does the money go? In their pockets.

As a fan of them. I like that we spend our money to get the best players. People say it's not "fair" or not real baseball, but until they doimpose a salary cap. It is fine with me. I wish we could devlop the farm system more but you have to realize that it isn't going to happen.

A team like the Marlins need to have a minimum. It might as well a total waste of a franchise when they won't even spend. They collect all the luxury taxmoney and other free handouts and continue to do this. I think the minimum may be more important.

 

[koolbarbone]

Originally Posted by dmxfury

on my phone so hard to type a lot but WS Champ is different then overall competitive nature of the game

That's fact.

 

[frankie valentino]

How about, if there is no salary floor, we have bad teams relegated?

 

[phillypac]

these baseball team owners are the ones that need a salary cap

no one criticize these owners for how much they get paid

i bet then they would stop crying and pay players like they owe them for all the money they make for these owners