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

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I have several arguments against the salcap rule. But the main one is......it doesn't work. Maybe it works in theory, but in practice it's useless.

Don't compare baseball to football on the pro level and say the cap has anything to do with it. The NFL will always squash MLB.

With the salcap we got our first 0-16 team ever that was not expansion. The year before we got our first regular season 16-0 team. And this season, instead of parity we have a huge disparity. Teams like Washington, Chiefs, Raiders, Bucs, Lions, Browns, Rams, Titans, are absolutely horrible. Then you have the two SB teams, Saints and Pats, the rest are middle of the road teams.

Is this what the salcap is supposed to do? Maybe it is not implemented correctly? Because it has certainly been in place long enough.

Doesnt seem much different from the NFL in the 70's. We had the great teams like the raiders, steelers, cowboys, dolphins and the crappy teams like the cardinals, lions, bills, jets, giants. Yeah those teams made some playoffs but for the most part werent that good compared to the top teams.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Bandwagon fans are bad for bad teams, but good for good teams. That's why I love bandwagon fans. They are the main driving forces for teams to improve.

If a team can keep fans without winning, why bother?

But isnt a bandwagon fan one who supports a team after they are good?
If a team is already good why would they need bandwagon fans. I dont see how playing for the support of non loyal fans would inspire a team. But then again i dont know what playing for loyals fans (raiders) has done to inspire the
team the last 6 years.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

But isnt a bandwagon fan one who supports a team after they are good?
If a team is already good why would they need bandwagon fans. I dont see how playing for the support of non loyal fans would inspire a team. But then again i dont know what playing for loyals fans (raiders) has done to inspire the
team the last 6 years.

Because having additional fans support the team after it gets good gives the team the additional income it needs to retain the players that made it good. The biggest complaint we've seen here about salary inequities is that teams like the Yankees can afford to sign guys like Jeter and Rivera to gargantuan extensions while teams like Seattle couldn't afford to keep players like Alex Rodriguez and Ken Griffey, Jr. In theory, if additional fans had jumped on the Seattle bandwagon in the late '90's, they might have made enough money off the additional tickets and merchandise sales to be able to sign ARod to a $200 million contract.

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The only clubs who have a genuine complaint are the Blue Jays, Orioles, and Rays, because they're the clubs stuck in the same divsion as the Yankees and Red Sox.

Agreed. I would argue the current structure is pretty unfair to them. But not to baseball as a whole.

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I have several arguments against the salcap rule. But the main one is......it doesn't work. Maybe it works in theory, but in practice it's useless.

Don't compare baseball to football on the pro level and say the cap has anything to do with it. The NFL will always squash MLB.

With the salcap we got our first 0-16 team ever that was not expansion. The year before we got our first regular season 16-0 team. And this season, instead of parity we have a huge disparity. Teams like Washington, Chiefs, Raiders, Bucs, Lions, Browns, Rams, Titans, are absolutely horrible. Then you have the two SB teams, Saints and Pats, the rest are middle of the road teams.

Is this what the salcap is supposed to do? Maybe it is not implemented correctly? Because it has certainly been in place long enough.

No cap or FA system will make up for poor ownership and general management. Because this is the first season I have seen so many teams that are just a waste.

The NFL creates season-to-season parity through the salary cap and its schedule. Of those horrible teams you listed, I would be willing to bet at least 2 of those teams will be .500 or better next year. I think this is more what the NFL is looking for in terms of parity rather than 32 teams with 6-10 wins every year. Sure poor ownership and front office will defeat these measures as they do in any sport.

[Jason Moyer]

Screw a salary cap. What the MLB needs is a draft bonus/rookie salary structure that lets smaller markets develop young talent. That's the area where the rich teams are really getting the edge... If I were a Pirates fan, instead of lamenting the loss of overpriced players to free agency I'd be a lot more depressed by their inability to get anyone worthwhile with their constant high draft picks because they can't and/or don't want to spend the money it would take to sign them.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by TribeFanInNC

The NFL creates season-to-season parity through the salary cap and its schedule. Of those horrible teams you listed, I would be willing to bet at least 2 of those teams will be .500 or better next year. I think this is more what the NFL is looking for in terms of parity rather than 32 teams with 6-10 wins every year. Sure poor ownership and front office will defeat these measures as they do in any sport.

That has a lot more to do with scheduling than the salary cap, though. Those terrible teams may look a lot better in terms of overall record the next season, but they're rarely better in head-to-head matchups against the perennially good teams.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by mlyons

That has a lot more to do with scheduling than the salary cap, though. Those terrible teams may look a lot better in terms of overall record the next season, but they're rarely better in head-to-head matchups against the perennially good teams.

Perennially good teams are because the top players usually don't jump around until the point they lose their jobs.

Its not so bad that the Steelers are good for so many years in a row as long as the reason isn't because they keep buying the top 5% to 10% talent away from other teams.

If the NLF was like the MLB, the New York Giants/Jets, or Chicago Bears would already have added Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Troy Palomalu and Adrian Peterson to their teams a couple years back.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Screw a salary cap. What the MLB needs is a draft bonus/rookie salary structure that lets smaller markets develop young talent. That's the area where the rich teams are really getting the edge... If I were a Pirates fan, instead of lamenting the loss of overpriced players to free agency I'd be a lot more depressed by their inability to get anyone worthwhile with their constant high draft picks because they can't and/or don't want to spend the money it would take to sign them.

The numbers do not seem to bear this out.

In 2008, according to Forbes, Tampa Bay was 25th in MLB in terms of revenue, Pittsburgh was 28th, and Kansas City 29th. And yet, according to Baseball America, in terms of total money spent on signing bonuses from the 2008 amateur draft, these clubs comprised the three out of the top four clubs. Kansas City was first in signing bonus expenditures, while, Tampa Bay was second, and Pittsburgh fourth. Not only that, but the Royals, Rays, and Pirates were each all willing to spend some $6 million to sign their first-round picks.

If there is a problem it likely has more to do with smaller market clubs not wanting to spend the money rather than not being able to. Thanks to revenue sharing, smaller market clubs can make handsome profits without ever having to improve their teams.

Originally Posted by mlyons

That has a lot more to do with [NFL] scheduling than the salary cap, though. Those terrible teams may look a lot better in terms of overall record the next season, but they're rarely better in head-to-head matchups against the perennially good teams.

Considering that every team in a given division in the NFL plays 14 of its 16 games against the exact same opponents, blaming scheduling does not seem warranted. There are only two games each season which are allotted based on the prior season's results.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Because having additional fans support the team after it gets good gives the team the additional income it needs to retain the players that made it good. The biggest complaint we've seen here about salary inequities is that teams like the Yankees can afford to sign guys like Jeter and Rivera to gargantuan extensions while teams like Seattle couldn't afford to keep players like Alex Rodriguez and Ken Griffey, Jr. In theory, if additional fans had jumped on the Seattle bandwagon in the late '90's, they might have made enough money off the additional tickets and merchandise sales to be able to sign ARod to a $200 million contract.

You really think bandwagon fans would help the Mariners sign A-Rod? I doubt it.
I just dont think bandwagon fans would spend a lot of money on a team they may only like for a few years. Though it could help a little but i dont think it would help big market teams as much but i could see it hurting small market teams by not having bandwagon fans since they probably need them more. But hey doesnt Paul Allen own the Mariners or is it Nintendo. Either one should have enough money to cover bandwagon fans.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

You really think bandwagon fans would help the Mariners sign A-Rod? I doubt it.
I just dont think bandwagon fans would spend a lot of money on a team they may only like for a few years. Though it could help a little but i dont think it would help big market teams as much but i could see it hurting small market teams by not having bandwagon fans since they probably need them more. But hey doesnt Paul Allen own the Mariners or is it Nintendo. Either one should have enough money to cover bandwagon fans.

Bandwagon fans actually are exactly the reason for teams to sign popular players. When we say popular players attract more fans and sell more tickets and merchandises, what we mean is exactly about bandwagon fans that wouldn't have bought tickets and merchandises if not for the popular players.

And this kind of effect can reinforce itself. Real Madrid suddenly became popular outside of Spain when they signed a lot of famous players. A lot of bandwagon fans simply started to pay attention because of the players. With more focus on the team, all players on the team suddenly became more famous, therefore attracting even more fans onto the bandwagon.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

You really think bandwagon fans would help the Mariners sign A-Rod? I doubt it.
I just dont think bandwagon fans would spend a lot of money on a team they may only like for a few years. Though it could help a little but i dont think it would help big market teams as much but i could see it hurting small market teams by not having bandwagon fans since they probably need them more. But hey doesnt Paul Allen own the Mariners or is it Nintendo. Either one should have enough money to cover bandwagon fans.

Paul Allen owns the Seahawks and I think the Portland Trailblazers.

Nintendo is the Mariners, though I don't know the specifics of that or if its even still true.

Regardless of who owns a team they shouldn't be paying out of their own pocket and looked down upon if they don't. That's always Yankee fans defense..."Oh the Pirates owners are just trying to make money...they could afford those players if they really wanted to."

Big markets have population and/or lots of history going for them. I don't think that's a good excuse to make the league be uncompetitive.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Goody

Perennially good teams are because the top players usually don't jump around until the point they lose their jobs.

Its not so bad that the Steelers are good for so many years in a row as long as the reason isn't because they keep buying the top 5% to 10% talent away from other teams.

If the NLF was like the MLB, the New York Giants/Jets, or Chicago Bears would already have added Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Troy Palomalu and Adrian Peterson to their teams a couple years back.

Except, again, the revenue sources in the NFL are completely different from those in MLB. If you took the salary cap away, the Giants and Jets would do worse, because their revenues are actually in the bottom half of the league. Local markets just don't matter in the slightest in the NFL, which is why it doesn't make a lick of sense to compare its financial system to MLB's. You really need to compare the NBA or NHL to MLB if you want to look at financial issues and solutions.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Goody

Regardless of who owns a team they shouldn't be paying out of their own pocket and looked down upon if they don't. That's always Yankee fans defense..."Oh the Pirates owners are just trying to make money...they could afford those players if they really wanted to."

According to Forbes, in 2008 the New York Yankees took in $375 million in revenue and spent $236 million on player salaries, or 62.9% of revenue. Pittsburgh took in $144 million in revenue and spent $65 million on player salaries, or 45.1% of revenues. If the Pirates spent as large a percentage of their revenue on player salaries as did the Yankees, it would amount to $90.6 million.

Note that, again according to Forbes, the Pirates had a net operating income of $15.9 million whereas the Yankees lost $3.7 million (mostly due to revenue sharing and the luxury tax). So, even if Pittsburgh couldn't spend the same percentage of revenue on player salaries as did the Yankees, it could at least spend another $15 million.

(The most profitable team in 2008? The Flordia Marlins, with an estimated $43.7 million in net operating income. This on total revenues of $139 million.)

[Goody]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

According to Forbes, in 2008 the New York Yankees took in $375 million in revenue and spent $236 million on player salaries, or 62.9% of revenue. Pittsburgh took in $144 million in revenue and spent $65 million on player salaries, or 45.1% of revenues. If the Pirates spent as large a percentage of their revenue on player salaries as did the Yankees, it would amount to $90.6 million.

Note that, again according to Forbes, the Pirates had a net operating income of $15.9 million whereas the Yankees lost $3.7 million (mostly due to revenue sharing and the luxury tax). So, even if Pittsburgh couldn't spend the same percentage of revenue on player salaries as did the Yankees, it could at least spend another $15 million.

(The most profitable team in 2008? The Flordia Marlins, with an estimated $43.7 million in net operating income. This on total revenues of $139 million.)

So maybe there should be a minimum salary "cap". If a team can't afford to pay it...sell the team.

ANYTHING, to fix this shuffling of star players off to already loaded teams.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Goody

So maybe there should be a minimum salary "cap". If a team can't afford to pay it...sell the team.

ANYTHING, to fix this shuffling of star players off to already loaded teams.

Wow, you're actually starting to come around to other people's viewpoints. That's unusual for an internet discussion.

Anyway, I do see your problem with the current MLB system. I think you're trying to address it in the wrong way. I really don't think the problem is the Yankees; it's all the small market teams who have decided it's not worth it to try to field competitive teams. I think there are systemic things that can be done with baseball's financial system to address that which will have a more positive overall effect than simply taking money away from the Yankees (which is basically what MLB has been doing for the last decade) will. Small market teams need to have some sort of incentive to actually give money to their players, or they'll just keep letting them walk -- if not to the Yankees (surprisingly few players have left small market teams to sign with the Yankees) then to the other medium to large market teams.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Goody

ANYTHING, to fix this shuffling of star players off to already loaded teams.

So... eliminate free agency and return to the glory days of the reserve clause?

[marc]

This is America. I can't think of anything more communistic and un-american than a Salary Cap. You don't penalize teams that have good fanbases that actually support the team.

Life isn't fair, the local food mart doesn't have the same chance to succeed as a Wal-Mart franchise. Why in the world should these leagues go out of their way to make bad teams and poorly run franchises more successful?

In the business world, and let's face it that is what pro sports is, those franchises would fold or go out of business.

[marc]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Screw a salary cap. What the MLB needs is a draft bonus/rookie salary structure that lets smaller markets develop young talent. That's the area where the rich teams are really getting the edge... If I were a Pirates fan, instead of lamenting the loss of overpriced players to free agency I'd be a lot more depressed by their inability to get anyone worthwhile with their constant high draft picks because they can't and/or don't want to spend the money it would take to sign them.

Bingo. Spot on.

[Russ]

Parity