Would you take a year off to see a salary cap/floor...

[Invader3K]

Well, that was the point I was making earlier. Increased revenue sharing sounds all well and good, but how do you actually make the Yankees give up money they've earned? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Just seems like another pipe dream for small market fans to grasp at.

[Ennder]

If they had an NFL style salary cap the Yankees would still have huge advantages, I hope people realize this. There is no way to make it 'fair', the NFL isn't 'fair'. With an NFL style salary cap players would sign for less to play for the Yankees than other teams instead of the current system where the Yankees have to overpay to get their players. I'm all for systems that equalize things some but I don't think a hard cap works, it just makes too much mediocrity. The NFL is boring these days when there are only 2-3 good teams each season. I wouldn't mind a cap mind you, it would just need to be a cap that is high enough that not every single team lives at it.

[endaround]

Fix revenue sharing by having MLB take over all local broadcast rights and a salary cap becomes meaningless.

 

Should baseball be equal in America? Should Selig equal Obama? Should the Yankees equal the top 3% incomes who pay the majority of taxes so the others can survive? The Yankees ownership has a right to do with their money what they want. Taking the Yankees broadcast rights is equal to putting a cap on player earnings. They are Americans and they have a right to earn as much as they can, just like any baseball player. When CC blows out his arm and they owe another $100 million to him, you will not see them cry, they will just go and get another pitcher. That is why it is easy to hate the Yankees, which I rather enjoy.

 

Life in America is not about being equal, it is about making the best with what you have. The current system is not equal, but it is fair. When you join, you know the rules. If you don't like the rules, you should not have joined. I'm not trying to be ugly, but if you don't like it, go watch Little League, Babe Ruth League, or American Legion baseball. That is where baseball is being played for the right reasons anyway.

The Yankees don't make such huge amounts due them working harder, they make it because the MLB has given them terratorial and broadcast rights to New York while limiting competition in the area. And the rules are not handed down by god, they are written by men and can be changed by men.

[RightFieldCoder]

If baseball was based on "free market", a team should be allowed to move to NY to take away some of the customers. Baseball is not a free market. Baseball is a negotiated monopoly between its various sectors. The Yankees and Mets are allowed a monopoly in the NY area. The Brewers are allowed a monopoly in parts of Wisconsin. A monopoly only works if the money being made hand over fist in one sector is used to cover the operating losses in another area.

[tigerbrew]

Without MLB, the Yankees would not survive. Even in New York, who wants to pay good money to watch the Yankees play with themselves all year. I think it's alright to fix revenue sharing by having MLB take over all local broadcasting rights and distribute the revenue equally to all 30 teams.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Absolutely not.

 

We don't have a roided up McGwire and Sosa to bring the fans back this time.

 

I know some of the people that fancy themselves the 'hardcore' fans might like nothing more than sitting in Miller Park with about 12,000 other 'fans', turning up their noses at the 'FAIR WEATHER FANS' who'd give up on baseball after another work stoppage, but it's those same fair weather fans that have allowed the Brewers to have a payroll that's allowed them even a short window of competitiveness, and pay Braun, and pay Yo, and bring in guys like Cameron and the like. Granted, some of the money has been spent unwisely, but at least they were able to do it.

 

I look at the NFL's version of 'parity', and say no thanks.

 

Baseball has problems that do need to be addressed, but taking a year off and once again COMPLETELY alienating the fanbase is the wrong way to do it.

 

I know Brewerfan is made up of mostly hardcore fans, but keep in mind most fans aren't that 'in' to baseball as we are.

 

They're not going to keep coming back when these guys take a year off to fight over billions of revenue dollars.

[monty57]

Mr. Southpaw, I agree with you on how this relates in "real life" but not in baseball. In "real life," it was great for Best Buy that Circuit City went out of business. People still need to buy TVs, so Best Buy gets more customers. In baseball, what do the Yankees do when they've beaten their competition into submission so that they have to go out of business? Nothing, it can't happen. All of the teams are part of the same organization, the MLB. Since owners each own a team rather than 1/30 share of the MLB, this little fact has been forgotten.

 

In "real life," if half of your competition ceased to exist, you'd make a lot more money. In baseball, if half the teams ceased to exist, the remaining teams would make a lot less money. The "big market" teams rely on the "small market" teams and vice versa. That said, making things competitive will not become an issue unless the owners can unite to make it happen. The only way this happens is if overall revenues drop. The biggest way overall revenues will drop is if the fans stop coming out in record numbers. Big market fans aren't going to stop coming, as the unfair system means their teams are always in the playoff hunt, which is why the system isn't likely to change... by definition, the most fans live in the big markets, so revenues for MLB are up when big markets get an unfair advantage.

 

If small market fans got frustrated enough that they completely stop going to (or even watching) games, then theoretically the small market teams would fail, ending MLB as we know it and therefore ending the large revenues for big market teams. However, even small market teams are making money (due to smaller payrolls), so they're not going out of business, and even if they were, some other city would spend massive amounts of taxpayer money to bring the failing team to their market.

 

I think the biggest hope in evening up the payrolls is for continued tightening of the revenue sharing process and a push towards TV revenue sharing. I've stated it several times here before, but I believe all internet revenues are shared. Since it won't be too long before we get all of our TV programming over the internet, a lot more of the broadcast revenue will be shared in the not-too-distant future.

[Invader3K]

Maybe everything isn't quite as rosy for MLB this season as expected.

 

Probably nothing to panic about yet, but it seems like in some of the smaller markets, attendance isn't where they hoped so far this year.

[paul253]

Baseball has problems that do need to be addressed, but taking a year

off and once again COMPLETELY alienating the fanbase is the wrong way to

do it.

 

I disagree. I think fans would come back because I think most of them, outside of New York maybe, want a salary cap. I think if the owners took a stand against salaries it's something the every day fan would appreciate and relate to. The key would be how the owners react to it, though. You can't take a year off of baseball to limit salaries and then raise ticket and food prices again every year. If the owners want the players to give something up, then they need to as well. In this case, it would benefit the fans the most, which is why I think they'd be quicker to come back.

[joepepsi]

If baseball was based on "free market", a team should be allowed to move to NY to take away some of the customers. Baseball is not a free market. Baseball is a negotiated monopoly between its various sectors. The Yankees and Mets are allowed a monopoly in the NY area. The Brewers are allowed a monopoly in parts of Wisconsin. A monopoly only works if the money being made hand over fist in one sector is used to cover the operating losses in another area.

Bingo. NYC/New Jersey metro area could support at least two more MLB teams. In fact, that would be the best, most stable market to for MLB to expand. But it won't happen because Bud wants to protect the Yankees and Mets profits.

 

I just don't see why it's the players' responsibility to fix the inequities of MLB (salary cap). If there are financial disparities between teams, then it's up to MLB to fix them, and MLB is run by the owners. So it should be the owners who are giving up revenues and sharing with poorer teams, if they believe there is a problem. But like others have said here, I don't believe the owners really think there is a problem.

[jerichoholicninja]

For those who say that the salary cap and parity are why the NFL is so popular I think that those reasons are very low on the list.

 

First of all football is violent. People love violence. Football is easy to follow. It's a one game a week commitment and player wise all you need to know is the quarterback, a runningback, a wide receiver and maybe a few defensive players. Every team gets coverage. No matter how bad or good the team is ESPN, FOX, or CBS will have their game and at some point during the season do a story about them. The biggest reason I think is because most NFL fans are football fans. They're like me. I root for the Vikings (sorry Wisconsin) but I don't live and die with them. I'm more of a fan of the game than of a particular team. Because of fantasy football and betting the game is the biggest reason people watch rather than the teams.

 

Baseball fans I've found are very team loyal. Which sucks because unless you are a fan of the Yankees or Red Sox your team will go through cycles of winning and losing. A big injury early in the season could mean 5 months of playing out the season waiting for next year. It's a very big commitment time wise to be a fan of a baseball team and in most of the country that means giving up time during the summer, those few months of the year you look forward to the rest of the year.

 

I think baseball fans need to realize that baseball does not mean what it used to in America. Up until the 1960's baseball was the only real pro game in town. Pro football and probably college football have pass baseball in terms of popularity. Big markets have plenty of people to still support their teams but in places like the Midwest football is king and baseball is a once or twice a summer kind of thing. Adding a salary cap and floor isn't going to fix these problems.

[logan82]

I would have said that there is only one game a week it is very easy to follow football. To follow any other sport takes a very big time commitment. Plus almost all the football games are on the weekend.

[AJAY]

For those who say that the salary cap and parity are why the NFL is so popular I think that those reasons are very low on the list.

 

 

Whether those reasons are low on the list or high on the list, I am pretty sure football fans appreciate not having to feel like they have to compete with one hand tied behind their back. I am pretty sure they appreciate being able to get excited about their star players rather than having to worry about losing them. I am also sure they appreciate the fact that it feels like the league actually cares about their franchise and their feelings.

 

A special thank you to all the posters in this thread who understand that there is no "market" in baseball and that fans have no interest in baseball resembling "real life". I couldn't have phrased it better myself.

[jeffy]

I disagree. I think fans would come back because I think most of them, outside of New York maybe, want a salary cap.

I think fans of teams like the Brewers just want a more equal opportunity to win. How that is accomplished does not really matter, sharing more revenue, salary cap, "luxury tax", whatever.

Losing a full season to a lock out or strike is absolutely not the way I'd like to see this accomplished.

[DuWayne Steurer]

 

A special thank you to all the posters in this thread who understand that there is no "market" in baseball and that fans have no interest in baseball resembling "real life". I couldn't have phrased it better myself.

We can say these things, but that doesn't make them definitively true. Fan is short for fanatic. Just because fans scream bloody murder about competitive imbalance doesn't mean anyone or anybody is owed anything.

 

A year off, and a salary cap is not the be all end all solution that people seem to think it would be. The players are making a proportionally smaller slice of the pie than they have in quite a while. Why should the players feel beholden to fix the competitive imbalance in baseball by making less money?

 

People get mad at how much they make. Several members of this forum expressed ANGER at Corey Hart for going to arbitration and making as much as he could based on the system. This is 100% mind boggling to me. Just baffling. I wonder how many of those people would turn down a raise at work and say "no boss, I haven't been performing up to my standards"

 

It doesn't matter that people don't want baseball to be 'real life'. It is. Especially to those staking and making millions of dollars in it.

 

People want to blame the players, while some of the owners (ESPECIALLY those getting revenue sharing money) are making money hand over fist.

 

Again I say, just because the absolute diehards would come back after a year away, I 99.5% believe that a lot of the casual fans won't come back.

[Patrick425]

TooLiveBrew[/b]] One thing I will never understand is why so many fans side with the owners.

Because they are the ones taking the risk. They are supposed to make money. The players are getting paid millions for having God given talent. Yes, I know they work hard at their skills too, but no matter how much time most of us spent working at baseball there was no way we will ever become professional ballplayers. Sorry, can't get behind the players who make millions of dollars playing a kids game but are still worried that they are still somehow being mistreated by "greedy" owners. Put away your pride for once and thank your lucky stars for your situation in life because all you are doing is hurting the game with your misguided need to make sure that you are not being "cheated" out of your "fair share" of the pie.

 

If players think that owners have it so good and are greedy and don't share enough of the profits, then maybe they should quit baseball and pursue ownership in a MLB club.

[Mr QL]

I was pretty young the during the strike so I don't really remember it but would there had been such a negative reaction if they had actually gotten something out of the strike?

 

The will probably be a work stoppage in the NBA and possibly the NFL soon too.

[monty57]

Lockouts and strikes are not going to make fans happier about the game. Uber-rich owners fighting against an uber-rich union and mulit-million dollar players is not going to ingratiate "Joe six pack." Rather, that person is going to say "I can spend my $100 on {fill in the blank with any of a number of recreational activities}."

 

Eventually, most if not all of the fans return but it could take a long time and cost all of baseball millions of dollars. The only way a lockout will happen is if the owners start to lose money, and that's not the way things are trending. With baseball's popularity soaring, the owners also have a vested interest in making sure a strike doesn't happen, so talks of a salary cap probably won't get very far.

[The Truth]

We will agree to disagree, the NFL is just terrible now.

Agree with Ennder, the NFL is a shell of its former self and a testement to the mediocrity that "parity" and a salary cap has brought to pro football...

 

Because the game is so different, I think MLB would fare much better with a salary cap, but absolutely not, I do not want to see a year off

 

(And I think the chances are better that Jose Canseco will be named the new MLB commisioner than the propsal as presented by the OP)

 

 

[jerichoholicninja]

Here's an outside the box idea.

 

Instead of players being paid in certain dollars how about they get paid in percentage of revenue. The owner decides I will make X% of the revenue and the GM and other front office people make Y% of it and Z% will go to development and scouting. Then players are signed to a certain percentage of revenue. This forces the owners to show fans how much they are taking off the top and how much is being spent on the club. Players have the incentive to play hard and win because more wins should mean more revenue (sponsors, ratings, attendance) and player bonuses would not be based on arbitrary stats that the player may hurt the team while trying to reach. For the Brewers, Suppan might have taken himself out of the rotation because he was hurting his own bottom line. The big market teams are still going to sign superstars and make gobs of money but this tells the players and fans which owners are in it to win it and those that are there just to make money. Hopefully fans and players would avoid teams with owners in it for the money and force them to spend or sell.

 

Is this perfect? Not in any way but I think think it is going to take something that has never been tried before for baseball to achieve competitive balance.

[Ennder]

Having watched the Cubs series this weekend, maybe I'd take off the rest of this year to fix revenues some~.

[joepepsi]

Here's an outside the box idea.

 

Instead of players being paid in certain dollars how about they get paid in percentage of revenue. The owner decides I will make X% of the revenue and the GM and other front office people make Y% of it and Z% will go to development and scouting. Then players are signed to a certain percentage of revenue. This forces the owners to show fans how much they are taking off the top and how much is being spent on the club. Players have the incentive to play hard and win because more wins should mean more revenue (sponsors, ratings, attendance) and player bonuses would not be based on arbitrary stats that the player may hurt the team while trying to reach. For the Brewers, Suppan might have taken himself out of the rotation because he was hurting his own bottom line. The big market teams are still going to sign superstars and make gobs of money but this tells the players and fans which owners are in it to win it and those that are there just to make money. Hopefully fans and players would avoid teams with owners in it for the money and force them to spend or sell.

 

Is this perfect? Not in any way but I think think it is going to take something that has never been tried before for baseball to achieve competitive balance.

Marxist baseball! I love it! The workers share in the profits. Better watch out though, the Tea Baggers might cut the gas line to your house if you keep spoutin' these Commie ideas on the internets.

[Flying Dutchman]

In my ideal world, there is more revenue sharing, and a floor, but not necessarily a ceiling. Basically if the payroll of a major league roster of a team doesn't equal the floor, they get no more money back than their team generated. So if the Marlins want to run a team with a $25 million payroll, that's fine, but they don't get anything other than their own local revenue back. Therefore if a smaller market team feels they can make money this way, they can go for it, but the Yankees and Red Sox of the world can't complain about a team lining their pockets with revenue sharing money. Although, honestly I think that in 10-15 years this debate will be moot, because by then a lot of people will be getting their baseball through the Internet, which Bud was smart enough to get as shared revenue. Heck, if it weren't for the blackouts I would shell out $200 a season for Brewers and $200 more for the Bucks and cancel my cable tomorrow. I think(hope) soon enough I will be able to do this.

[joepepsi]

Although, honestly I think that in 10-15 years this debate will be moot, because by then a lot of people will be getting their baseball through the Internet, which Bud was smart enough to get as shared revenue. Heck, if it weren't for the blackouts I would shell out $200 a season for Brewers and $200 more for the Bucks and cancel my cable tomorrow. I think(hope) soon enough I will be able to do this.

Excellent point. I also think GM are getting smarter about spending their money. Salaries have taken a hit the last two years due to the economy, but I doubt that's just a temporary blip. The Players Union may scream "collusion" but GMs have finally realized it's foolish to offer 4-5 year inflated dollar deals to the "middle class" or lower baseball player.

 

Sure the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and a handful of others will still be offering outrageous sums to HOF caliber players. But there are only so many of those players around, and in a given offseason there could be few or none. Even the rich teams know better now than to overpay for middle of the road players. The Yankees and Angels didn't pursue any signficant free agent, the Red Sox just Lackey.

 

I'm probably not explaining myself well, but I suspect the days of top Hot Stove free agents setting the market for the rest are over. There are the Texieras and Sabathias on one level, then there will be middle class that almost any team can afford, then there will be the lower classes that sign NRI's year to year. While this may mean a team like the Brewers still won't be able to keep Braun or Fielder for their entire careers, they should be better able to sign good players at reasonable contracts to complement the young talent they have to keep drafting.

 

In other words, it's just possible this inequity is working itself out.

[monty57]

In other words, it's just possible this inequity is working itself out

 

I think you're correct in your scenario, which means the inequity is working itself out among small and mid-market teams, but the "Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and a handful of others" still get all the Hall of Fame players.