Salary Cap?

[kmcasper23]

I know after the latest spending binge of the Yankees Mark Attanasio was calling for a salary cap. I agree with him 100% that this sport desperately needs it because MLB is gonna become a joke if it doesn't. Look at all the other sports, I would much rather watch the NFL because any team could win it any year. You think it would be nice if even the Pirates could succeed like the Steelers have or the Brewers like the Packers had for so many years. The salary cap works great in all other professional sports leagues.

 

Having said that I know the players union will never go for this in MLB so some creativity may need to happen to level the playing field. How bout putting a limit on the number of Type A free agents that can be signed by one team. Why should they Yankees be able to sign 3 in one year and from what I heard could add Sheets and Cruz to that to make it 5. Put a limit on it like 2 per year or 3 every 2 years or something like that, just like how College scholarships work, so one team can't just hoard all the talent kind of like the Yankees are doing now.

 

Something needs to be done or this will become a 4 team league and I have a feeling that the marketing value of MLB will go down with it so they should want to also come up with a plan! I consider myself a pretty big fan and would still support the Brewers no matter what. But why would your casual fan support their team anymore if they know the Yankees or Red Sox or Phillies or Mets are gonna win every year.

[yoyo49]

The Phillies had the 13th highest payroll last year, so they don't really fit in with the Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets of the world.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries

 

 

Also, this article outlines why a salary cap would not work in baseball.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/01/15/bp.salarycap/index.html

[Ennder]

The Rays went to the world series last year 2nd lowest salary in baseball and the Yankees, Tigers and Mets all missed the playoffs with the highest 3. The Marlins have won 2 world series in recent years with the lowest payroll in baseball.

 

The Lions aren't anywhere near more competitive than the Pirates are so even the bottom teams aren't really any different. Honestly if you think that every team is equal in the NFL you are being a bit naive.

[Point Beer Is Best]

...the Yankees, Tigers and Mets all missed the playoffs with the highest 3.

And the next 5 teams all made the playoffs. If the Mets hadn't choked (again), then 6 of the top 8 teams in terms of salary would have made the playoffs. The only team to even make the playoffs in the bottom half of payroll were the Rays. And the only way you assemble a team like that is to stink for years and hope all of your very high draft picks pan out to make a run like they did.

 

The Marlins have won 2 world series in recent years with the lowest payroll in baseball.

And look what the firesales did to their fanbase:

 

http://snaggingbaseballs.mlblogs.com/marlins_baseball.jpg

 

 

I know you won't agree, but to me there is a relationship between team payroll and playoffs.

[Frisbee Slider]

I think Major League Baseball is and will continue to be exciting if the talent and team salary levels follow a bell curve. I want to see David versus Goliath match ups. I want to passionately root against the Yankees because of all the reasons people dislike them today.

 

Imagine the 1927 New York Yankees having to trade Babe Ruth just to "free up cap space."

 

Removing historically great teams by instituting a salary cap does not improve the quality of the game. I consider a hard salary cap as a means of mandating mediocrity across the league. We should not aim to have a league where the Detroit Lions of the world deserve a chance at the Super Bowl next year.

 

I know the salary cap arguments can become a can of worms. I am happy with revenue sharing and luxury tax but not a hard cap.

[kmcasper23]

As much as I would like the salary cap like I said I know it won't happen. I like the cap because then a team can actually develop their own players and then not have to worry about the Yankees or Red Sox or some other wealthy team coming in and stealing these players once they reach their prime. The Yankees made the playoffs for 13 straight years so yes a lot can be said for payroll leading to winning. I also realize that the Marlins won 2 world series only to sell the team off and become the worst team in baseball immediately after winning it all.

 

Just please limit the amount of type A free agents that one team can sign. A team that loses a type A free agent is supposed to get a 1st round pick and if you don't have a 1st round pick to give up you should not be allowed to sign another one. Kinda like the franchise players in football. If you don't have a 1st and 3rd round pick to give up you can't sign the frachise players.

[Ennder]

Nicely put Cricks28. That sums up what I feel about the NFL now, it just isnt' interesting to follow the game at all compared to before the salary cap.

[Invader3K]

I think there are plenty of other ways MLB could make things a little more even competitively without instituting a salary cap. They could easily implement an international draft, and also introduce a salary "floor" (something I have no reason to doubt the union would agree to), which would make teams like the Marlins spend more money instead of just pocketing virtually all of their profits. That would create more competition for free agents, at least somewhat.

[nate82]

Getting rid of the Type A and Type B free agents would be the first step in creating a competitive balance. The Type A and Type B free agents compensation would be replaced with the franchise tag. A team would be able to select a maximum of 2 players each year that will become a free agent with the franchise tag. In order for another team to sign 1 franchise tagged player they need to have 1 1st round pick (not protected) and a 3rd round pick. This would limit the amount of franchise tagged players to be signed by a team.

 

This will also force teams with higher payrolls to make decisions on who they want and not just go after every high profiled free agent because they can.

 

For the players union to accept the franchise tag a player could only be tagged once and the player would get a one year deal worth the average of the top 3 paid players in their position. This would also make teams wary of tagging players just to tag them with the franchise tag.

 

Other than doing something like that more revenue sharing would help out the teams with a minimum salary cap would create more competition. The Marlins pocket more money than any other team in MLB. A salary cap is not something I want to see in baseball.

[jjfanec]

Nicely put Cricks28. That sums up what I feel about the NFL now, it just isnt' interesting to follow the game at all compared to before the salary cap.

You may say that but the reality the rapidly growing fan base and consistent dominance in tv ratings shows that a lot of other people disagree. I love the fact that this year the Houston finished with the same amount of wins as Washington. Teams that make smart draft choices and good free agent decisions can turn franchises around way quicker than in baseball. Atlanta was able to bounce back this year and it was a great story. In baseball it is just harder to do that. Sure drafting well can do it, but lets look at reality. Tampa had to lose for what 12 seasons and get great draft picks in order to compete.

The ability for a bad team to turn it around quickly is what makes football's system much better to me. Sure players change teams but it really is not as bad as people make it sound. It is actually no different than what the Brewers will be looking at. In baseball lower market teams are forced to break-up teams and trade players so they can keep under the cap. In football teams are forced to decide who to keep and who to let go. The Packers have not lost a player they would have really liked to keep since Mike Wahle or maybe Ryan Longwell due to salary cap reasons. Not that many good players actually come up for free agency each year. The last big name qb was Drew Brees and that was only because San Diego had Philip Rivers and wanted to move on. I cannot remember the last young running back who hit the open market. Each year a couple studs do hit the market but not that many. Last year the best qb was Chad Pennington after he got cut, the best wide receiver was Bernard Berrian, the best running back was a career back up Michael Turner who SD could have kept but did not think they needed to.

The fact is just as many if not more big names hit free agency in baseball this year including CC, Burnett, Manny, Tex, K-Rod, Lowe, Dempster but only 8-10 teams can afford to try and sign most of these guys without crippling their payroll in the long term. Footballs non-guaranteed contracts also help because there is less risk in the deals.

[twobrewers]

1. Get rid of comp picks for the top spending teams. (The Yankees should not receive extra picks for losing Type A free agents)

2. Implement a rookie salary scale (for the draft)

3. Allow teams to trade draft choices.

 

Those would be far more effective than a salary cap.

[DHonks]

actually, the NFL's franchising tags are stupid.

 

The only decent thing for MLB to borrow from the NFL would be the process of evaluating free agents signed vs lost. If the Yankees sign 5 free agents, they shouldn't be gaining protected draft picks for the 3-5 players they lost.

[Invader3K]

I agree with that (the part about how the Yankees shouldn't be gaining draft picks).

 

I think the big reason that this salary cap discussion is coming up, is just that this off season has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, mostly Brewers fans but others across baseball as well. It's like the Brewers are basically being punished for running their team "the right way", where as the Yankees do things "the wrong way" and still seem to end up in a much better situation. Not getting a first round pick for losing Sabathia is pretty much completely ridiculous. Trying to break it down to "MLB needs a salary cap" is an over simplification of the issues at hand, in my view.

 

I guess the more I look at it, I would say again that I don't think a hard salary cap is the answer...but there are things MLB could easily do so that small market teams don't continually get hosed.

[Frisbee Slider]

Re: NFL Television Ratings

I think the NFL's television ratings are largely a product of a few things:

- The games are one time per week
- The games are generally the same day and time every week, year after year (people can build a Sunday tradition of watching football)
- Most people do not work Sunday afternoons
- What else is on tv on Sundays? Bowling? Ice skating?

Television ratings are an important measure of health for a league but should not be the ultimate measure. I never got into the show "Deal or No Deal" but I'm sure it has gotten high television ratings. Even though it gets high ratings, I do not think we can fairly conclude that it is a great show.

The way baseball is setup now, it is more possible to have clashes between genuinely great teams. In the NFL it is more likely to have Trent Dilfer and Kerry Collins lead their teams into the Super Bowl. Before the salary cap, we had Joe Montana against John Elway...Terry Bradshaw against Roger Stauchbach...Troy Aikman and Jim Kelly.

[jjfanec]

 

Re: NFL Television Ratings

 

I think the NFL's television ratings are largely a product of a few things:

 

- The games are one time per week

- The games are generally the same day and time every week, year after year (people can build a Sunday tradition of watching football)

- Most people do not work Sunday afternoons

- What else is on tv on Sundays? Bowling? Ice skating?

Television ratings are an important measure of health for a league but should not be the ultimate measure. I never got into the show "Deal or No Deal" but I'm sure it has gotten high television ratings. Even though it gets high ratings, I do not think we can fairly conclude that it is a great show.

 

The way baseball is setup now, it is more possible to have clashes between genuinely great teams. In the NFL it is more likely to have Trent Dilfer and Kerry Collins lead their teams into the Super Bowl. Before the salary cap, we had Joe Montana against John Elway...Terry Bradshaw against Roger Stauchbach...Troy Aikman and Jim Kelly.

Those are good points except that the NLF on Fox, NBC, and CBS each have higher ratings (10.4, 9.9, 9.5) than the World Series did this year (8.4). So, even when they are up against one another they beat the best baseball has to offer. Remember that is average so is not just Cowboys games. It is easy to say the product is not as good so dont look at the ratings (that is what I do with Two and a Half Men - i hate that show), but the reality is people like it and gravitate to it. The fact most people like the product the NFL is putting out there.

 

I think the fact that football gets high rating even if it star teams or players are not going head to head is a great testimony to its strength. Yankee's vs Red Sox in the playoffs did beat Monday night football a couple times when they went up against one another but that is one of the few times baseball one head to head that I could find.

 

How has not having a salary cap lead to great match-ups in the world series? Philly vs Tampa, Red Sox vs Rockies, St. Louis vs Detroit, White Sox vs Astros, Red Sox vs St. Louis ( the best of the bunch) etc are not big match ups.

[kmcasper23]

I will just go back to my original point that each team should only be allowed to sign one type A free agent per offseason cause they only have one first round pick. This will force the other teams to sign the other free agents since the Yankees can't sign them all and would lower the salaries then leading to more competitive balance.

[kramnoj]

This will force the other teams to sign the other free agents since the Yankees can't sign them all and would lower the salaries then leading to more competitive balance.

 

Limiting the ability of the Yankees to sign free agents won't force other teams to sign free agents. Look at what is going on right now. There are plenty of free agents to be had, and they aren't getting contracts right now.

 

Lowering salaries won't neccessarily lead to competitive balance, it just means less money for the players, which they won't agree to. And player salaries have been dropping in baseball in comparison to baseball revenues for years. Getting the players to take less money shouldn't really be an issue.

 

Baseball should have more revenue sharing and that revenue sharing should have to be spent on baseball operations. Hopefully the talk about a salary cap is really just public negotiations that lead to a compromise that increases the revenue sharing.

[Invader3K]

I don't know...I think in principle, the Yankees should have been allowed to sign at least three upper tier free agents due to all the players they were losing to free agency and retirement...however, when they can just waltz in and sign a guy for 60 million more than his current team was offering (which was already a record breaking offer), that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not sure there's a good solution right now, and I don't think MLB is really motivated to make major changes due to record revenue and attendance they currently enjoy.

 

As far as the NFL comparisons, I think it's apples and oranges. Just take our own state here in Wisconsin...the Packers only have to sell out 8 games, the Brewers have 81 games. There's always going to be more interest in each individual Packer game. Also, for a lot of people out there, the Packers (or whatever NFL team) are their only sports "commitment." There are so many people out there that only care about watching the Packers once a week, but they'll darn sure be watching it, and that's it. Most MLB teams are never going to generate that kind of casual but loyal type of commitment.

 

I think one thing that MLB could possibly take from the NFL is how they market their teams...in the NFL, other than the real bottom of the barrel teams, it seems like every team gets equal attention. People at least know who the quarterback of the Cardinals is. In MLB, the Rays make the World Series and people are like "Uh...who are these guys?" because ESPN and the like continually tout the Yankees, Red Sox, and few others.

[twobrewers]

1. Get rid of comp picks for the top spending teams. (The Yankees should not receive extra picks for losing Type A free agents)

I want to change my own idea.

 

You only get comp picks for players you developed (Drafted or signed), played through arbitration, and then lost via free agency. You don't receive a comp pick for signing a free agent to a one year deal - then letting him leave the next year. (Red Sox's apparent plan this year)

 

The additional bonus is that home grown players are likely to stay with the team instead of being traded before free agency.

[Ennder]

Football ratings are higher than baseball because the sport is more popular. This is probably largely because of the average attention span of the american TV viewer. I would hope we can agree that just being popular doesn't make something better and it doesn't make me 'wrong' for not liking it as much. Football to me is a casual sport, you have fun watching a game and then you forget about the sport completely until there is the next game to watch. Baseball is a lifestyle, I check out what happened in baseball every day of the year even during the offseason. I used to feel more like that about football but direction it has gone has really taken the passion out of the game for me.

[jjfanec]

Football ratings are higher than baseball because the sport is more popular. This is probably largely because of the average attention span of the american TV viewer. I would hope we can agree that just being popular doesn't make something better and it doesn't make me 'wrong' for not liking it as much. Football to me is a casual sport, you have fun watching a game and then you forget about the sport completely until there is the next game to watch. Baseball is a lifestyle, I check out what happened in baseball every day of the year even during the offseason. I used to feel more like that about football but direction it has gone has really taken the passion out of the game for me.

I definitely do not want to insinuate that you like baseball more than football is wrong. I like baseball more than football, I think partly because of the long season, and I have seen the Packers win and want badly to see the Brewers in the Series. I just think some tweaks to system whether it be a cap, a better more useful luxury tax, or revenue sharing that goes into payroll not owners pocket baseball could level the playing field a bit.

 

I think passion can be raised for the average baseball fan if a more level playing field is set up. Over 90% of NFL fans go into a season thinking their team has a shot, or they find out that they do have shot part way through the year (like Atlanta, Baltimore, Arizona, Miami, etc this year). I do not think that is the same about baseball and I think that keeps the passion away from the average fan. Where in football a lot of the average fans I know still are passionate about it.

 

Do not get me wrong I love baseball and do not what a complete upheaval, I am just sick of the certain free-agents only really having 8 teams that they would go to. That along with teams being able to spend over slot in the draft to make up for losing picks to signing free agents keeps the competitive balance down. A small market team has to draft amazingly well for numerous years to compete. Part of the reason we are good now is because of our terrible teams giving us high draft picks and then hitting on a good handful of those picks.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Football ratings are higher than baseball because the sport is more popular. This is probably largely because of the average attention span of the american TV viewer. I would hope we can agree that just being popular doesn't make something better and it doesn't make me 'wrong' for not liking it as much. Football to me is a casual sport, you have fun watching a game and then you forget about the sport completely until there is the next game to watch. Baseball is a lifestyle, I check out what happened in baseball every day of the year even during the offseason. I used to feel more like that about football but direction it has gone has really taken the passion out of the game for me.

I am pretty much in 100% agreement with that. Football is the perfect sport for America because people just don't have the spare time that they used to have, which is probably why baseball was so popular in the early to mid part of the 20th century. When you only have to follow 16 games per year with only one game per week, that allows a lot more casual fans to enter the picture who have stronger interests in other things. I am also a basketball nut, but they too, like baseball lose a lot of fans in the span of an 82 game season over 7-8 months counting the playoffs.

 

At least baseball is far from a dying game, but it would have been cool to have been around in the earlier days when it was THE game to follow.

 

As far as the salary cap, there have been a few threads about this and I have the same opinion now as I did then: We need to do something. I'm not sure if the salary cap is the answer, but you can't have a monopoly on free agents like we do now with the Yankees up on top and everyone else underneath them in payroll. Yes, the Yankees didn't make the playoffs this year, but they were in an impossible division and it was the first time in many years. It would be foolish not to think that they won't be right back in it next year.

 

Bud Selig knows this too, and he will do something when the next CBA comes around, but until then, we get to see the Brewers, A's, Twins, etc as a farm system for the Large Market teams.

[sveumrules]

i have a feeling that if you told teams in the nfl that they could control all rookie players for the first six years in the league with the first three years there being essentially no salary requirements and then the following three years being cost controlled through arbitration they would probably trade in the cap pretty quick. as it stands right now, it looks like the cap might now be around too long in the nfl anyway...

[nate82]

With the free agency rules in the NFL it really doesn't make any sense to have a salary cap. Take this year into consideration if the Dallas Cowboys really wanted to sign Ray Lewis or any of the other top free agents this year they could and the Packers will still be way down on the bottom of the list of teams Ray Lewis would want to go to.

 

The salary cap doesn't help the Packers and small market teams as many think it does. The big name free agents still go to the big market clubs. When was the last time the Packers signed a highly ranked free agent? Charles Woodson wasn't a highly ranked free agent at the time when he signed with the Packers remember Woodson had question marks about his injury the season before and if he was fully recovered. I actually believe the Packers over paid for Woodson. After Woodson it was Reggie White and that was it.

 

The salary cap doesn't really help the small market teams. What helps the small market teams compete in the NFL is the way players become free agents. There are restricted and unrestricted free agents. It takes a certain amount of years to become one or the other. By the time a player becomes a unrestricted free agent a player is normally at the peak of their career or in the decline of their career.

 

In the NFL you don't have a lot of free agents in the age range of 24-28 years old that are superstars. When was the last time there were free agents equivalent to Sabathia, Teixeira, Burnett, Ramirez, Dunn, Sheets, etc. for the NFL? Most of the time there are only one or two players in that caliber of players in the NFL free agency and at a higher rate you have average to below average players in free agency. Nearly every year in baseball you will have a lot of players that are in the upper echelon of players in free agency.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Football has it easy - their farm system is college football, something the organizations don't have to spend a penny on. College football gives all pro teams plenty of opportunities to scout amateur players playing against other quality competition and make an informed decision as to a player's ability. That's the fundamental difference between football and baseball - drafts in baseball tend to have a higher risk of players flopping due to a lack of overall knowledge of a prospect's ability, but the initial cost of drafting players and giving them time to develop in the minor leagues is relatively low. Football gets a free farm system, but wasting high draft picks on players who flop cripple an organization's salary cap structure and roster flexibility, because a player drafted has to be on their roster, not toiling away at some single-A club learning how to play football. Then again, non-guaranteed contracts in football give GM's a get out of jail free card that baseball doesn't have.

 

The other big difference is the shared revenue, including tv contracts, that the NFL has set up compared to baseball, where teams in big market cities can dominate small market teams if they're properly managed.

 

Baseball may not be the most watched sport on television, but it's still the most attended, accessible, and affordable by the average joe and by middle class families throughout america. Factor in the paid attendances of countless minor and independent league teams, and the numbers aren't even close. Granted, the number of games in a baseball season dwarfs football, but I'd argue that makes the sport better to actively follow.