Attanasio still pushing salary cap

[Invader3K]

My biggest beef isn't with the Yankees spending all this money to replace payroll coming off the books, it's that they can go so far ahead of outbidding the closest other team for a premier player, and then that team gets shafted when the Yankees go out and sign the ONE OTHER GUY ranked higher than him. That's what really rubbed me the wrong way. While I think a lot of tweaking needs to be done, I don't think necessarily a salary cap is the answer, either. I'm in favor of a salary floor, and I also think doing something like the NFL's "franchise tag" system could benefit MLB.

 

Let's be honest, too, a lot of people are throwing around an $80 million/yr salary cap figure for whatever reason, which is ridiculously low given the current success MLB is enjoying. If MLB ever did introduce a salary cap, it would probably be around the $150 million or so range, and only affect a very small handful of teams.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Let's be honest, too, a lot of people are throwing around an $80 million/yr salary cap figure for whatever reason, which is ridiculously low given the current success MLB is enjoying. If MLB ever did introduce a salary cap, it would probably be around the $150 million or so range, and only affect a very small handful of teams.

Yeah, that's true. 80 million was way too low of a number to be throwing around, but even a 150 million dollar salary cap with a 60 million dollar floor would go a long way. I like the franshise tag idea as well.

[GAME05]

but for the most part, teams that keep their player payroll low also tend to offer the cheapest prices to attend a baseball game. so then creating a cap and a floor you'd think would then increase the price of attendance. maybe the fans in Kansas City and Milwaukee and Pittsburgh would like more of a financial balance, but would they also be willing to pay 30% more (or whatever) to attend a ballgame?

[Ennder]

i think i even saw somewhere that their payroll will probably end up being LOWER next year than it was last year.

 

If the season started today their payroll would be lower than last year. They also probably have a lot of dead money in those long contracts because the odds of those players staying healthy for the entire contract is very low. There is a lot of risk in their offseason signings.

[Invader3K]

Well, it might if the salary floor is higher than what those teams arleady operate at...but for a team like Milwaukee, it shouldn't hurt anything if they are already above the theoretical "floor". Yeah, a team like the Marlins or Royals who already aren't that popular and have bottom basement payroll might be affected, though.

 

Personally, though, I think I could deal with paying a few bucks extra per game if it meant the Brewers had a better chance to keep players like Sabathia, etc.

[TooLiveBrew]

Fair enough, but do you honestly think what the Yankees are doing this offseason is good for baseball and that the rules are ok the way they are now? If you do, I strongly disagree.

 

Of course the imbalance in market size isn't great for competitive balance. I think limiting it to 'The Yankees' clouds the discussion -- there are plenty of teams that don't have to worry much about risk in their contracts. I just don't believe that a payroll cap would make things better. It would just ensure that the owners pulled in a disproportionate amount of revenue (no wonder so many of them are for a payroll cap, eh? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif)

 

By "the rules", I'm not quite sure what you mean. That's pretty broad -- can you clarify that at all?

[HonoluluBrew]

The sport would be much more competitive with 100% revenue sharing than a salary cap, IMO. Revenue sharing would also be more easily approved by the union.

[Invader3K]

The sport would be much more competitive with 100% revenue sharing than a salary cap, IMO. Revenue sharing would also be more easily approved by the union.

Can anyone elaborate on how exactly revenue sharing works right now? I'm really curious.

[kramnoj]

Per this link, revenue sharing is 34% of net local revenue: http://www.forbes.com/200...ons-cx_mo_0420sports.html Merchandise sales outside stadiums are split equally. From this link, it says that each team received $3M from leaguewide merchanise sales, even though the Yankees represent 27% of all sales.

[ozzybourne]

The sport would be much more competitive with 100% revenue sharing than a salary cap, IMO. Revenue sharing would also be more easily approved by the union.

I think this is correct about revenue sharing.

 

The only way to get a salary cap is to change the rules of free agency, which is usually not discussed hand in hand. not likely today, but possible in the future as economic hard times hit MLB like the rest of the country.

 

Changing FA would not change the premise of allowing players to have movement after x # of years, but possibly change the # of years with some adjustment to arbitration, combined with a more 'slotted' salary range during the arby years. This would help control payroll increases without limiting what FA could make.

 

Additionally, revisions would have to be made in the 'ranking 'of FA for draft pick reimbursement, along with changes in that reimbursement--perhaps with the team losing the FA being able to pick a player from the signer off a protected roster list, vs. the draft pick ( or in lieu of). now granted, this type of change may discourage some signings, but it would not prevent them