Attanasio still pushing salary cap

[Invader3K]

Latest JSonline blog details some comments Attanasio is making in regard to the latest owners meeting.

 

"It's about keeping the sport competitive and not about, 'Hey, pay me money.' We're not looking to get a handout. This is not sour grapes."

 

I say good for Mr. Attanasio. I like the rib at the Yankees in there.

[Oldcity]

I'm not interested in a salary cap--the NFL is too watered down with parity if you ask me. The biggest problem in baseball is television contracts. The Brewers are stuck with their crappy FSN contract while the Yankees bring in gobs of cash from the YES Network.

[bork]

And the Cubs side with the Yankees.

 

"I've been asked about the Yankees' spending," Chicago Cubs chairman Crane Kenney said. "I have no problem with what they've done. They've done it within the rules, within the confines of our agreement.

 

"And if you look at the reality there, they've got a $1.3 billion stadium coming online," Kenney said. "They were probably relying on Wall Street to fill a lot of those seats. And they missed the playoffs for the first time in 13 years. So their reaction is probably similar to what I would do, which is, you've got to put a compelling product on the field when you open the doors of that new ballpark, and that's what they did. Listen, they played within the rules, so I have no issue with it."

http://cbs4.com/sports/mlb.salary.cap.2.908732.html

 

A salary cap really seems like a non-starter. They'd have to get the players to agree to it, but before that could happen, the owners would have to agree among themselves. Doesn't seem likely.

[brewerfan82]

And the Cubs side with the Yankees.

Looks like the Cubs are just saying they're okay that the Yankees are spending that much because they're doing it within the rules and I don't think that really differs from Mark A's opinion. Mark doesn't have a problem with the Yankees, he has a problem with how MLB is being run to allow teams with different resources to outspend teams without those resources. That's why the "sour grapes" comment from the Yankees was ridiculous. Kind of like saying "sour grapes" to Susan B. Anthony (On a much lower scale, obviously).

[bklynbrewcrew]

Good for Attanassio. This sport needs a salary cap. As for those who think its bad for football should realize the Packers would be much less competitive without one. The NFL is the best league because each and every team has the same chance of winning every year. That is not so in baseball.

[tomwopat]

Is there any owner that doesn't want a salary cap?

[JoeH33]

Here's a quite interesting article from Baseball Prospectus that argues a salary cap would not be good for baseball.

 

http://www.baseballprospe...rticle.php?articleid=8409

[monty57]

The big market / big revenue owners don't want a salary cap because they gain a competitive advantage in the current system. Teams like the Yankees and to a lesser extent Cubs can spend more than mid- and small- revenue teams and still turn a big profit. They will always be able to get the high priced free agents and give themselves a better chance of winning, which keeps the fans happy and keeps more revenue coming in.

 

Of course, some teams (the Orioles and recently the Mariners) can bungle this advantage, and some teams (the Twins, A's and recently Brewers and Rays) can be competitive for a period despite the inherant disadvantage, but the advantage still exists.

 

As bork commented, a salary cap probably won't happen because first the team owners have to agree, which is not likely to happen. Then, if somehow the owners can agree, they have to bring it to the bargaining table, and the Union won't agree to it unless it can somehow assure that the players will make more money.

[sveumrules]

america operates and was built upon the premise of a free market society. with baseball being THEE american game i see no reason why it should operate any differently. a salary cap is just as socialist as a strikeout is facist.

 

not to mention, there already is a salary cap. it's just that it's a soft cap and it's called the luxury tax.

[ttsather]

This all seems like classic "aim high" tactics.

 

Start talking about a salary cap, create an environment conducive to producing smaller (but still meaningful) changes down the road.

[tomwopat]

But don't the big market teams have the most to gain in cost savings from a salary cap? If the payroll of the Yankees is reduced $100MM, it's hard for me to believe that as a result of them potentially being less competitive due to the cap, their revenues would drop $100MM.

 

I'm having troubles imagining how sharing television revenues would work with MLB, when most teams games are on regional sports networks on cable, some teams owning some or all of the regional sports network. If the MLB were to negotiate television contracts for all the teams, the revenue might be spread around more evenly, but the coverage would end up resembling ESPN where the big markets get 99% of the coverage and the small markets are a footnote in terms of resources and airtime.

 

As far as the NFL goes, I think that voidable contracts go much farther in creating parity than the salary cap, but the two are closely linked.

[Patrick425]

I'm all for a salary cap, but someone bought a good point on XM this morning. Look at Sabathia, Jeter, Arod, and Tex on the Yankees. Assuming the Yankees sign Jeter to an some over priced contract after 2010. The Yankees pay for these 4 aging, past their prime, players will be $90mil for 2014.

 

2014 Yankees payroll:

 

CC, age-34, $23million

Jeter, 40, $20million?

ARod, 39, $25million

Tex, 34, 22.4million

 

Not that 34 is really old, but that kind of money on 4 players of those ages who are becoming less and less productive could end up being a bit of a weight, even for the Yankees.

[Ennder]

The yankees have about the 4th best team in baseball probably and the #1 salary. They have to overpay players to play there and since they always go veteran heavy they rarely have impact rookies. Better revenue sharing would be a great boon for baseball but a salary cap just isn't needed.

[PeaveyFury]

I'm not interested in a salary cap--the NFL is too watered down with parity if you ask me.

 

I've heard this said by a lot of people, but I really don't understand it- it's not exciting that most teams go into a season with a legitimate chance at a Championship?

[logan82]

Better revenue sharing would be a great boon for baseball but a salary cap just isn't needed.

 

My feelings as well. I do think it is sour grapes on Attanasio's part as well. He's upset, heck I'm upset with this whole offseason. It looked like even if we didn't sign either of Sheets or Sabathia we would get at least a couple 1st round picks for them. Now it's looking like we get 2 2nd round picks if we are lucky.

[PKBadger]

I'm having troubles imagining how sharing television revenues would work with MLB, when most teams games are on regional sports networks on cable, some teams owning some or all of the regional sports network. If the MLB were to negotiate television contracts for all the teams, the revenue might be spread around more evenly, but the coverage would end up resembling ESPN where the big markets get 99% of the coverage and the small markets are a footnote in terms of resources and airtime.

I am not a proponent of a salary cap, so I do think that addressing the TV contract discrepancy is the best path towards better competition in MLB.

 

My suggestion to the problem that tomwopat outlines is as follows:

 

MLB sets up a commission to appraise the market value of local TV contracts, and the teams use that number as guidance in their negotiations with the cable network. For example, let's say that the Brewers are renegotiating with FSN. The MLB panel goes to the Brewers and says, "based on the size of your market, recent ratings figures for Brewers broadcasts, the # of games being shown, and the % of these broadcasts being shown in high definition, we estimate that the rights should be worth $XX million per year." This is done for all 30 teams, and the combined estimated value is divided equally throughout the league after all contracts have been agreed upon and the money has been pooled by the league.

 

If the league's estimate is lower than what the team is able to negotiate, then the team is able to pocket the difference. Example: Panel tells Brewers they should expect to receive $5 million per year, but FSN pays $6 million - Brewers keep $1 million for themselves. If the estimate is higher than the team's contract, MLB contributes the difference into the revenue pool (they're swimming in cash as it is with their online ventures, this shouldn't be a problem).

 

League rules could state that if a team owns the cable network (i.e. Yankees and YES, Red Sox and NESN), then the contract must be equal to the panel's estimate. This would prevent any overpaying or underpaying designed to cheat the system.

[recte44]

They simply need to come up with a true revenue split. Murph on The Score today brought up this topic- so if the Royals are scheduled to play the Yankees at Yankee Stadium, the Yankees make like $10M that day. What if the Royals refuse to show up? Shouldn't they get 50% of the gate, TV revenue, etc, etc? If the Royals don't show up, there's no game and thus no revenue for the Yankees.

 

All of the problems with baseball's finances come from the owners, and not from the players.

[Ennder]

I'm not interested in a salary cap--the NFL is too watered down with parity if you ask me.

 

I've heard this said by a lot of people, but I really don't understand it- it's not exciting that most teams go into a season with a legitimate chance at a Championship?

If every single team went into every season exactly even in talent and the games were basically won or loss by a coin flip I'd absolutely hate the game. Football is a lot like this now. Team gets a few lucky bounces and they go from a 7-9 quality team to a playoff team.

[danzig6767]

I'm not interested in a salary cap--the NFL is too watered down with parity if you ask me.

 

I've heard this said by a lot of people, but I really don't understand it- it's not exciting that most teams go into a season with a legitimate chance at a Championship?

If every single team went into every season exactly even in talent and the games were basically won or loss by a coin flip I'd absolutely hate the game. Football is a lot like this now. Team gets a few lucky bounces and they go from a 7-9 quality team to a playoff team.

Aren't you the one constantly saying that so and so player or baseball team had a lucky year and that it played a huge role in their success?

 

As for a salary cap in baseball, it seems to me that people are going crazy over what the Yankees did, but they are only one team. Unless a cap number was low enough to effect most larger market teams spending, which i can't see happening, what's the point to get a cap that mainly curtails only one team?

[joepepsi]

The yankees have about the 4th best team in baseball probably....

Boy I don't see that at all. Not to hijack the thread or anything, but essentially what they've done is replace Mussina/Pettitte/Abreu/Giambi, with CC/Burnett/Teixeira/Swisher. I'd be curious to know what the difference in 2008 VORP is between the two groups. Bet it's not as much as the "pundits" want you to believe. Much of CC's value over Mussina's in 2008 can be explained by his move to a new league that hadn't faced him much before. His 1.65 ERA in Milwaukee was half his ERA each of his previous two seasons in Cleveland and a full two runs less than his career ERA.

 

They are a mediocre defensive team at best. Other than Tex and ARod the rest of the offense is remarkably average. They were 7th in the league in runs scored. They were 8th in team ERA. They only won 89 games last year, and it took a 17-9 September to reach that number. Their pythagorean w/l was 87-75. I doubt they are the 4th best team in AL. They might be the 4th best team in AL East, though. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[burnzy24]

If every single team went into every season exactly even in talent and the games were basically won or loss by a coin flip I'd absolutely hate the game. Football is a lot like this now. Team gets a few lucky bounces and they go from a 7-9 quality team to a playoff team.

Management will play a huge roll even if there is a salary cap. There is a reason why the Lions and Raiders are so bad, they make bad personel decisions. As with the NBA, there are still really good teams and really bad teams.

[Thurston Fluff]

america operates and was built upon the premise of a free market society.

 

Which is why we now have to impose new rules and spend billions to bail out those companies that the free market failed. This would not be the time to use the America is based on free market principals argument.

 

Even setting that aside if it was a free market in baseball then maybe 90% of the teams should just not play any team with a payroll over a certain point. Let the few teams with the higher payroll play 162 games against the other five teams left and see what type of salaries they can afford. The Yankees like to believe they benefit everyone more than everyone benefits them but without team to play against their revenue would look more like WNBA team while I have little doubt without the Yankees the Brewers bottom line would look identical to what it is now. Giving every team a fair chance to operate effectively and keep thier players whohave some draw for their fans would greatly benefit all the teams.

[brewmann04]

I would love to have an even playing field

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

The NBA has a salary cap and you don't see the "watered down parity" that you see in the NFL. The reason for that is the short, 16 game season. You can also say, so what, the Yankes are stupid with their money and their player development, but what if they all of a sudden start getting smarter? Then it won't be fair at all. We should be looking at the NBA as a model for the salary cap, not the NFL, and yes, there should be one.

 

All of the problems with baseball's finances come from the owners, and not from the players.

Really? Donald Fehr's insistance on not having a salary cap seems to be problem caused by the players.

[squambaum]

america operates and was built upon the premise of a free market society. with baseball being THEE american game i see no reason why it should operate any differently. a salary cap is just as socialist as a strikeout is facist.

 

not to mention, there already is a salary cap. it's just that it's a soft cap and it's called the luxury tax.

Why does baseball have to follow the same rule as American economics? Not to mention the comparison doesn't still well because the Yankee's need competitors; unlike businesses which (ideally) want to drive their competitors out of business to grab the biggest chunk of the pie. If Burger King went out of business I'd choose between McDonalds and Wendys; if the Yankees drive the Brewers and other small market teams out of business I'm not going to become a Yankee fan, I'll just stop watching baseball (maybe not, but I'm not going to spend a fraction of the time I do now on it).

Baseball isn't even 'America's game' anymore either. It may have recieved the moniker way back in the day but I think it is fair to say that since football is more popular and uniquely American, it is fair to say that football is 'America's game'.

 

I'm all for a salary cap as long as it is accompanied by a floor. Level the playing field as much as possible and let the players decide it all on the field. If the Yankee's win it all next year what does that prove? That you can buy a championship in baseball? Just doesn't sound very exciting to me.