An alternative to a Salary Cap

[strawbossisevil]

As I have lived here in Mexico, an idea on how the MLB could go about leveling the playing field has come to my attention.

 

Here in Mexico, the biggest sport is soccer. The league is set up in three divisions. One of those divisions is called the "the division of death". In this division are all of the teams that have the biggest financial advantage, and thus generally are able to bring in the better "free agents".

 

This could be applied in the MLB as well, by dividing up the league between East and West. And then each league would have the top five spending teams in the same division. Such a league division would look like this.

 

East: Division of Death (Top Payroll Teams)

New York Yankees

New York Mets

Boston Red Sox

Detroit Tigers

Philadelphia Phillies

 

East: Division #2 (Mid Market Payroll Teams)

Houston Astros

Atlanta Braves

Cleveland Indians

Cincinnati Reds

St Louis Cardinals

 

East Division #3 (Lower Payroll Teams)

Baltimore Orioles

Florida Marlins

Tampa Bay Rays

Pittsburgh Pirates

Washington Nationals

 

West: Division of Death (Top Payroll Teams)

Los Angeles Angels

Los Angeles Dodgers

Seattle Mariners

Chicago Cubs

Chicago Whitesox

 

West: Division #2 (Midmarket Payroll Teams)

Toronto Bluejays

Texas Rangers

Milwaukee Brewers

Minnesota Twins

Kansas City Royals

 

West: Division #3 (Lower Payroll Teams)

Oakland As

San Diego Padres

Arizona Diamondbacks

Colorado Rockies

San Francisco Giants

 

I adjusted some of the divisions to limit the amount of travel needed, thus the reason why Kansas City is in the midmarket league in the West.

 

Some of the pros to realigning the league like this:

 

1. Teams that spend lots of money would not have the significant advantage over the teams that don't have the same amount of resources.

2. It would give teams in small markets and midmarket teams an actual chance at competing for their division title (Toronto, Tampa Bay, and Baltimore get out from the NY and Boston shadow).

3. Less travel for many teams, and an increase in cross town rivalries.

4. At max, only two of the big market teams could make it to the playoffs in each league.

5. No need for a long strike in order to enact a salary cap.

 

Some of the cons to realigning the league like this:

1. A lot of travel for teams from Chicago.

2. DH or no DH? Perhaps DH East, no DH West?

3. It's more possible that the four best teams in regard to talent do not make the playoffs.

4. Some traditional rivalries (Chicago, St. Louis f.e. get broken up)

5. No longer can there be a subway World Series.

6. It ends the tradition for many teams that have strong ties to a certain league, either American or National.

 

So what do you think? Crazy? Or could it actually be a creative solution to the problem?

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

It's pretty radical, but it would be better than we have now. Baseball traditionalists and "purists" would never let it happen though.

[KCBrewerfan34]

Here's a simple remedy to the cap. Let teams only sign 1 Type A free agent. They can negotiate with whoever they want but as soon as they sign a Type A player they drop out of the bidding for other players. This would solve a TON of problems!!!

[strawbossisevil]

The players union would never allow that KCBrewer, because it would drive down salaries a ton.

[KCBrewerfan34]

The players union is probably going to be in for a rude awakening on the next contract, especially if the economy is anywhere near where it is now. The owners could probably implement almost anything they want.

[razzzorsharp]

Crazy idea that I myself would not like but I respect the time and thought that went into it.

[ecjimg]

Not sure what this accomplishes other than giving teams with small payrolls a chance to get into one round of the playoffs. The teams with all the money would still dominate.

I would like MLB to add 2 teams. One in New Jersey and a National league team in Boston (with a state of the art new stadium). Yankees, Mets and Red Sox (three of the big spenders) Owners dont like it that they have to share revenue from massive TV revenue and population bases with the "have nots", give those localities more teams.......like kind of a teams per capital formula. Maybe splitting the market might cut in to the wealth and bring them back to reality.

[Ennder]

That setup would see the high payroll teams almost never winning the world series. They have to pay vets more than they are worth to stay competitive so they end up with a much lower value per dollar every season. I don't know that this would be any fairer than what we have now to be honest.

 

Lower payroll teams aren't even close to as disadvantaged as people want to think they are. The top 3 or 4 payroll teams have a real advantage but outside of that things are way more even than people want to believe.

[strawbossisevil]

That's not necessarily true Ennder. Two for sure, and up to four of the high payroll teams could make the playoffs each season. I'm not quite sure what you are saying with the dollar argument. If you are saying that it negates a bit of their ability to gain an advantage by monopolizing free agency, you are right. The top 10 may spend the most money, but they are directly competing against the other teams that spend like crazy, meaning their huge amount of spending doesn't provide them with the huge advantage that it does when they are up against teams that have huge financial disadvantages.

 

So yes, if you are saying that it means that it makes it harder for a team to "buy" a championship you are right. That's exactly the point. It prevents a select few teams from purchasing trips to the post season, while allowing teams that aren't able to spend in that way the opportunity to be involved in the playoffs as well.

 

And the argument that it merely allows teams to get one round of playoffs. I think by now most would realize the crap shoot that the playoffs are. Once a team is in the playoffs anything can happen. Sure, the teams coming from the "group of death" may have the advantage, but anything can happen in a 5 or 7 game series.

[GAME05]

The players union is probably going to be in for a rude awakening on the next contract, especially if the economy is anywhere near where it is now. The owners could probably implement almost anything they want.

i'd think that if anything, the contract would stay right where it is. the Yankees are still going to get their guys, but right now we have some mid-range FAs who wouldn't be all that pricey to a team like Pittsburgh or Tampa Bay.

 

it'll be curious what attendance figures end up being this season, if people can still afford to go to games like they did last year. although both sides have to be very fearful of a strike that i'd guess there won't be any major changes to the way things are now.

 

thing is, this plan assumes that the highest-payroll teams are the ones winning the WS rings, but so far that hasn't played out. I think if I were to do something this radical, I wouldn't do even-numbered divisions. The lowest division would be 15 teams, and out of that would come only two playoff teams. Then a league of 10 with three playoff teams, then a league of 7 with another three playoff teams. if the divisions were even, there'd be zero incentive to spend any money.

[lordofbrewtown]

I'm a big believer that all they really need to do is have TRUE revenue sharing. I'm just going off of memory - but I think the last labor agreement only had 30%. This really needs to be at 50% - and for ALL Revenues, including local TV & radio contracts (which I don't believe are currently included). If MLB would do that, the Yankees would still have an advantage (50% of 500 if more than 50% of 50) - but not nearly as great as now. Costas even mentioned this in his book Fair Ball - really, the small market teams should simply not let the Yankees or Red Sox local TV/radio crews plug in/set up when at their parks. That would change things in a hurry. Do that (as well as get another team in NY), and the big market teams would feel the pain of their management mistakes a lot more than they currently do, & I don't think there would be a need for a Salary cap.

[Ennder]

I agree lordofbrewtown, salary caps hurt as much as they help but revenue sharing is a great way to even things out some.

[Kricket755]

The 50% revenue sharing sounds great, and if every owner in baseball cared as much about winning as they do about profit, it would help the competitive balance greatly. I don't think this is the case. I think the problem comes in where teams like the Marlins or Royals would be able to sit on a 40 million dollar payroll, and turn a ridiculous profit. Not to mention the fact that with only 50% of their profits instead of 70% for the major markets, the amount that was needed to be spent for the small markets to compete would go down. Again, while in theory, that is the goal, but in reality I see some teams taking the shared profit and being complacent. Of course, this could be somewhat taken care of with some type of minimum number for annual payroll.

[Patrick425]

I don't think this is the case. I think the problem comes in where teams like the Marlins or Royals would be able to sit on a 40 million dollar payroll, and turn a ridiculous profit.

When people make statements like this, I always wonder what their source is. How do you know they are making ridiculous profits. No one really knows. I know Fortune always come out with estimates of teams profitibility. However, even they are making estimates based on assumptions. I have a hard time seeing how the Marlins make any money at all when many of their games have 1,000 or less fans in the stands.

[Kricket755]

I was not implying that those teams do make large profits right now, but rather that they would with the 50% revenue sharing. The Marlins and Royals averaged around 17,000 and 20,000 respectively last year, which I think is more than enough to turn a profit with that much shared. Granted, this is my simple reason and I don't know much on the matter as far as specific numbers. My point was simply that the higher percent that gets shared, the less the small market teams have to do to make money.

[Tbadder]

I think the real problem is profitability. I think that team books need to be absolutely transparent. This would open a lot of eyes and start to force some owner's hand. Any team that can't remain profitable needs to be contracted. If a team can't prove it's a legitimate business it doesn't have a right to exist--close up shop. I'd have a probationary period of say three years. If a team can't conclusively prove long term viability then poof! Gone! Revenue sharing is just a form of socialism; it's how the weak are allowed to prey on the strong.

 

On the other hand the players union is culpable for too much of the expense as well. The DH is a ridiculous idea that cost teams too much money. I'm not paying a worker a crap load for a guy who can't do 75% of the job. Guaranteed contracts are just as ridiculous. If a guy is hurt, suspend the contract, let worker's compensation take over until he can return healthy enough to perform. Cutting non-performing players with a small severance package should be a club option at any time.

 

Next we need management to lock out the players just like the NHL. No negotiations period. Just no league for at least a year, maybe two. Then lets talk about how the league should be run and what the rules are. If it alienates fans and they stay away, well, maybe they weren't fans in the first place. I'd like to see one year contracts only across the board.

 

In this way we weed out bad management, bad markets, bad teams, bad players, even bad fans (hey if you can't afford to drop a least 100 to 200 dollars a game and acn't afford to go to a significant amount of games stay home and watch a team in a different market because your team doesn't deserve to exist).

 

Prove to me that you can turn a profit. Prove to me you can perform. Why should I have to subsidize either end of the spectrum?

[Invader3K]

Doing a lockout for a "year or two" would be completely devastating to the sport as a whole. You'd have casual fans whining about how they'll never go to another game like you did in the mid '90s.

 

I think, as someone raised in another thread, we'll see signifcant changes after 2011, when the current agreement runs out. However, if the player's union isn't completely stupid, there won't be a lockout.

[Ennder]

The DH is a ridiculous idea that cost teams too much money.

 

Anything that stops me from watching someone like Ben Sheets try to hit is a good thing, don't you be messing with my DH~. If anything they should add it to the NL.

[Invader3K]

I do kind of wish they would either have the DH or not have it across all of MLB. I just think it's kind of silly that in 2009 they still have to have this artificial separation across the two leagues.

 

It does seem like increased revenue sharing would be a huge benefit for both players and many teams.

[monty57]

Strawboss, isn't there something along the lines of the last place team in "The division of death" goes to the bad division, and the top team in the bad division goes to the elite league? Maybe I'm thinking of some vague European sport. Anyway, as has been stated, you've come up with an interesting twist to add to the list of possible fixes, but there are too many groups that would complain about different things for it to ever become reality.

 

Tbadder, if you think of the MLB as the "corporation," then sharing revenues or capping salaries is not socialism. Unlike Social Darwinism, there cannot be survival of the fittest in baseball, as no team can succeed if others completely fail. If Wal-Mart knocks other retailers out of business, then they become more profitable as they get all the customers. However, if the Yankees are the only team left standing because all of the other teams went bankrupt trying to keep up, there will be no one left to play, and I can't believe people would show up just to watch the Yankees play with themselves.

 

I believe in free markets as much as anyone, but baseball (and its observers and participants) needs to realize that it is one entity, not thirty separate entities. They are competing with other forms of entertainment for your and my dollar. On any given summer evening, I can choose to go to a movie, go out with friends, go for a boat ride, etc., or watch a baseball game. The true free market is the entertainment industry, so from a business sense, the Yankees biggest competitors aren't the Red Sox, but rather Hollywood, the restaurant industry, other competing sports, and any other entertainment venue. The Yankees, Red Sox, Brewers, Cubs and everyone else are on the same team in trying to field the most visible product on the market.

 

Baseball needs to make sure they are doing whatever is best to make baseball the #1 choice for the largest number of people possible. I believe many in baseball feel that baseball is best off if large markets have an advantage, so they aren't in any hurry to completely overhaul the system. I think that Bud Selig and others realize that mid- and small- market teams still need to be able to remain competitive in order to keep fans all over the country interested in the product. Things like revenue sharing allow for that... the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, etc. still have an advantage, keeping ratings high in New York, Boston, Chicago and LA, but teams like the Brewers can field a $80-90MM salary and occasionally compete, keeping their fans interested.

 

As a Brewers fan, I would love to see them able to compete on a level playing field. The reality is, we won't see that until TV ratings and other indicators show that having a level playing field will be the most profitable route for baseball. Most of all, I'm glad that on any given day from March (Spring Training) through October, I'm able to view or listen to my favorite form of entertainment, professional baseball.

[Diskono]

As I have lived here in Mexico, an idea on how the MLB could go about leveling the playing field has come to my attention.

 

Here in Mexico, the biggest sport is soccer. The league is set up in three divisions. One of those divisions is called the "the division of death". In this division are all of the teams that have the biggest financial advantage, and thus generally are able to bring in the better "free agents".

I'm not really familiar with the Mexican league - how do they determine the groups, is it just by the overall table position from the previous season? Scotland does something similar to that, they start the season with everybody in the same group, and then half way through they divide the top and bottom, where the top 6 only play each other and the bottom 6 only play each other the rest of the way. Its interesting, but it would probably be a travel/scheduling nightmare over here.

[RightFieldCoder]

Revenue sharing is just a form of socialism; it's how the weak are allowed to prey on the strong.

Revenue sharing is like one division of a company making enough money for another division that's losing money. If baseball teams were truely capitalistic, the Royals would be allowed to build a new mega stadium across the street from the Yankees and compete for some of the NY money.