MLB Salary Cap (Or..just...something!) Redux of the Redux

[Goody]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

Are you just bitter that he spurned the Mariners? Or just against the Yankees?

There was no cap then and isn't now so it is impossible to tell. Of course different decisions would have been made with a cap in place, but it all depends on how high that cap is.

But would he have been making the same amount of money? Probably, since it was Texas that gave him the big deal, not the Yankees.

But at least the team would have to suck because of it, like the Rangers did.

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by Goody

Awful matchups?

Now how does that happen?

I believe he is referring to the regular season. They just released the top broadcasts all year, which you can see here.

Of course, all of those top match-ups have something in common.

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by Goody

All of the above.

It should be about teams and players that know how to win and run an organization well. NOT about how much you have to spend.

The reason why the Raiders can spend more money than anyone else is because of revenue sharing more so than a salary cap.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

I believe he is referring to the regular season. They just released the top broadcasts all year, which you can see here.

Of course, all of those top match-ups have something in common.

High payrolls right?

So maybe if they were more even...there would be more "top matchups".

[Goody]

Might as well cut it down to 8 teams. Then form another league with all the rest of the teams and put the competitiveness controls on that league so the rest of the nation can get in on baseball too without jumping a bandwagon.

I bet ratings would increase big time nationwide. Maybe kids would start going out for little league again. Their families could afford to go to a game where their team is actually competing for something on the level.

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by Goody

High payrolls right?

So maybe if they were more even...there would be more "top matchups".

Or teams that people want to watch. Not too many people would be interested in watching a Marlins and Pirates game of the week.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

Or teams that people want to watch. Not too many people would be interested in watching a Marlins and Pirates game of the week.

Yet they want to watch the Steelers or the Dolphins. Good point.

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by Goody

Yet they want to watch the Steelers or the Dolphins. Good point.

Exactly, because of the quality of the team. Ownership deserves a lot of credit in that. There is no comparison with how the Steelers run their team vs how the Pirates do.

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by Goody

Might as well cut it down to 8 teams. Then form another league with all the rest of the teams and put the competitiveness controls on that league so the rest of the nation can get in on baseball too without jumping a bandwagon.

I bet ratings would increase big time nationwide. Maybe kids would start going out for little league again. Their families could afford to go to a game where their team is actually competing for something on the level.

Good luck with that. Maybe they can call it the UBL and join forces with the UFL.

Just answer one question that you've ignored several times, how does a cap make it more affordable for families?

[Goody]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

Good luck with that. Maybe they can call it the UBL and join forces with the UFL.

Just answer one question that you've ignored several times, how does a cap make it more affordable for families?

It wouldn't. But at least a family that has to shell out that cash in Kansas City would have the chance to see their own team with its great players for many years. They wouldn't have to go watch the opposing team. In 5-10 years maybe a kid who grew up loving Greinke would still be able to see him play for his home team instead of knocking out the Twins in the playoffs for one of the powerhouses.

[Walkoff]

What should the cap be?

$100m?

Small market teams still couldn't spend to it, but you have to make it fair to the big market teams as well. The cap could never be less than $100m.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by Walkoff

What should the cap be?

$100m?

Small market teams still couldn't spend to it, but you have to make it fair to the big market teams as well. The cap could never be less than $100m.

That's a good question. Was talking to a co-worker about this exact thing today.

I like the per player cap idea. Say...10 million cap on a player that leaves his original team. If he comes up with the team...unlimited cap.

Then maybe the Royals can offer Greinke 14 million a year and actually keep him.

It might be at least a starting point.

It wouldn't be easy...because of the point its gotten to. Its so outlandish to have one team spending 200 million while another is less than 30 m.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Goody

All of the above.

It should be about teams and players that know how to win and run an organization well. NOT about how much you have to spend.

Actually it should, since how much a team can spend depends on how many fans a team has. It's really unfair that teams with not many fans can compete on the same footing with teams with a lot of fans.

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by Goody

That's a good question. Was talking to a co-worker about this exact thing today.

I like the per player cap idea. Say...10 million cap on a player that leaves his original team. If he comes up with the team...unlimited cap.

Then maybe the Royals can offer Greinke 14 million a year and actually keep him.

It might be at least a starting point.

It wouldn't be easy...because of the point its gotten to. Its so outlandish to have one team spending 200 million while another is less than 30 m.

And once they sign him to a big contract that two years later they find out they can't afford or he gets hurt what? You can't trade him because he would cause the other team to be over the cap. And what happens to revenue sharing under this scenario?

[yankeesrule]

only way the union agrees to a cap is if theres a minimum also, and teams like the pirates, marlins, royals ownership will never agree to this because they enjoy pocketing their $$$ rather than putting it back into the team

[Goody]

Originally Posted by yankeesrule

only way the union agrees to a cap is if theres a minimum also, and teams like the pirates, marlins, royals ownership will never agree to this because they enjoy pocketing their $$$ rather than putting it back into the team

So they sell their team to an owner that cares. Wish it could happen. It would be good for the game.

If that happened, the Yankees would be a team I would love to hate when they do good.

I hate the Steelers, a lot. In a good way...because at least I can respect them.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

And once they sign him to a big contract that two years later they find out they can't afford or he gets hurt what? You can't trade him because he would cause the other team to be over the cap. And what happens to revenue sharing under this scenario?

There's many leagues out there that use salary caps and competition controls...learn from them. Take what works.

But that wouldn't put as much money in the pockets of the players or the owners.

Who's this league for? They have great jobs we'd all love to have. We'd do it for 100,000 a year.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Goody

Awful matchups?

Now how does that happen?

Ironically, when small market teams are matched against each other. Turns out nobody wants to watch those.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Ironically, when small market teams are matched against each other. Turns out nobody wants to watch those.

Its not really ironic. Its the flaw. Its the entire reason for my lamenting.

When Green Bay faces Indianapolis in the NFL....plenty want to watch.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Goody

Who's this league for? They have great jobs we'd all love to have. We'd do it for 100,000 a year.

I'd rather the money go to the players than the owners, personally.