A Maximum Per Year Salary?

[zurch1818]

These Pujols

contract negotiations got me thinking about a potential solution to

baseball's economic problem. What if there was a maximum

per year salary....say 15-20 million? A hard

cap would be introduced...but it is much larger than any team has historically spent (375

million - 500 million). This would allow small market teams to still potentially keep their

homegrown talent but teams like the Yankees could still load up on these

top players at the maximum salary. A luxury tax penalty would still have to be payed though.

 

I know this system isn't perfect...but it is much better than the current system. My dream would be the hard cap seen in the NHL. The cap is 60 million and the maximum salary is 20% of that. If players get injured, teams are allowed to temporarily spend an allowance over the cap but must be under the cap by season's end. This is the time of the year where teams are starting to scramble to get under the cap if they aren't already. I'm not saying hockey is perfect...the cap hit still needs some work (see Ilya Kovalchuk situation).

 

However, this system works...just look at how competitive the Western conference is. The third place team (my Coyotes) is only 3 points ahead of the team currently in 8th place....and 8 teams in each conference make the playoffs. If you are unaware...a win is worth 2 points and a OTL is worth 1. Each game is a grind and is really starting to get fun to watch. If baseball were to just implement just a couple of the concepts this game would be extremely fun to watch.

[Dollarbill13]

Not really sure what economic problems you are speaking of... The whole world was in a recession and that probably caused revenues to be depressed slightly. However, take a look at this article: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/a...lb&partnerId=rss_mlb

 

It basically shows that baseball has withstood the recession much better than most industries.

 

With all that already being said, why would the players ever agree to a maximum salary? The hard cap was accepted in the NHL because the owners were losing a ton of money and the players basically had to accept a pay cut or go play in Europe.

[zurch1818]

Ok. Maybe economy in that sense wasn't the right word. I'm looking at it in a different sense...getting teams across the league to be competitive. With the current system, teams simply buy wins. Teams like the Pirates and Royals are struggling to produce a winning team. Teams with high payrolls are taking advantage of the current draft pick compensation policy. Something needs to be done to make baseball more competitive. So in that sense, baseball economics are broken.

[NievesNoNO]

I get what your saying I just think Hockey isn't a good comparison to baseball. Let me start by saying I don't follow Hockey at all so I might be completely off base but I'm going to guess that all the owners had no problem agreeing on a salary cap structure. Hockey doesn't generate near the revenue baseball does and I would guess most hockey franchises have a lot of the same financial issues. Whereas, in baseball there's enough money being generated by the large market teams that they really have no desire to cap things. As soon as teams stop giving away massive deals, players will stop asking for them. I actually do believe some team would give Pujols 300 million, so why not ask for it?

 

I do think there needs to be some tweaking to the baseball's system, but I don't think it's quite as broke as some think. A World draft would be a good start. Honestly, I'm not sure on the the rest. The individual TV deals are what's separating the large markets from the smaller ones. I think I'd like to see some sort of TV revenue sharing with any team accepting a portion of the TV revenue having to abide by a salary floor.

[zurch1818]

I also totally agree that hockey and baseball shouldn't be directly compared. It is just an example of how some type of cap can make a sport much more competitive. Yes, the quantity of money is much smaller, but some of the concepts can dramatically help baseball. Actually hockey is booming right now. The salary cap has risen from $40 million from its inception back in '05 all the way up to $60 million that it is at now. Only one team that I know of (my Coyotes again) are in financial trouble. I'm not trying to change baseball into hockey but just having baseball do something so teams can be more competitive needs to happen.

 

The thing with the current system is players are always going to be asking for more than the last guy. Remember when Arod signed a 200 million dollar contract and we thought it was unheard of. Now we are talking about Pujols getting 300 million. I just think the line needs to be drawn somewhere. If you were to implement a TV revenue sharing policy (which I think the NFL does...not really sure), teams would have more money and could afford to keep their players. Good point with the world draft. It would definitely take away some of the power they have in choosing what team they play for (and teams driving up their price by bidding for them). I'm going to say that players won't want to give up that right either...Something has to give.

[NievesNoNO]

To me, baseball seems to have basically 3 unions. The player, the owners, the large market owners. The challenge is getting all the owners to agree on the same thing. The players will agree eventually if all the owners are together, they have no choice. Too often it's actually the owners amongst themselves that can't agree to be more competitive. I really used to think that a salary cap was the answer and I still think something to level the playing field should be done, but I'm just less sure on how black and white it really is. No amount of money will ever compensate for a poorly run franchise (see the Detroit Lions). The problem with the Royals and Pirates (and the Brewers for may years) was incompetent scouting and player development and/or an unwillingness to completely start over no matter what the public perception. Building a solid baseball organization is a much tougher and longer process than an NFL or NBA team. Players just take more development. I think the Royals might be in the right direction and maaayybee the Pirates too. It's kind of the chicken and the egg thing though. You need attendance to generate revenue, but you generally need a competitive team to generate attendance. I often wonder why teams struggling to pull attendance in their down years don't start running things more like a minor league team and drop the ticket prices and get some people into the stadium. That's another subject I suppose.

[endaround]

A maximum salary didn't keep LaBron in Cleveland. The more you limit salary the more important outside income is meaning players will go to New York or LA to get that extra million in endorsement money.

[sveumrules]

Look at World Series participants and Super Bowl participants the last 10 years. 14 out of 30 (46.7%) of MLB teams have made an appearance as have 14 of 32 (43.8%) of NFL teams.

 

One reason there is more parity in the NFL is that 12 out of 32 teams make the playoffs (37.5%) vs. 8 out of 30 (26.7%) in MLB.

 

Also for every KC or PIT in MLB there is a DET or CAR in the NFL that has equally slim chances at the beginning of the year of winning the big shiny trophy.

[logan82]

The main reasons there is apparent parity in the NFL is the short season, national instead of regional TV contracts and drafted players have a more immediate impact.

[sveumrules]

I also would add that while the Mainstream Media would like to have us all believe the reason the NFL is so popular is because of the parity, and while I won't deny it plays a role, I'd wager the two most important factors in the NFL's popularity are the short schedule as logan pointed out above (16 sundays in the winter requires far less commitment from a casual fan then every single summer night) and the fact that the game has never been faster, stronger or more violent than its current incarnation.

 

Also if you institute a maximum player salary it will just lead to owners pocketing even more money than they already do and if anyone is gonna get ultra-mega-insanely rich off of this game I'd prefer it to be the players before the owners.

[logan82]

You can spend about 4 hours a week on football and easily know quite a bit and see all the games for your home team. 4 hours a week would barely be considered a baseball fan.

[dlk9s]

Also for every KC or PIT in MLB there is a DET or CAR in the NFL that has equally slim chances at the beginning of the year of winning the big shiny trophy.

Of course there are bad teams each season in every sport. But in football, teams that are bad on a year in, year out basis are bad because they are poorly managed, don't draft well, etc. Of course, some teams have a down year or two or three because they are just in a down cycle, like Carolina.

 

In baseball, most teams that are consistently in the bottom half (or so) of the league are there because they don't have the financial resources to compete. Obviously, spending money does not automatically equal success (see: Cubs, Orioles, and Dodgers) and some organizations with low payrolls also have crappy management (see: Pirates), but in general, if you don't have money, you don't have a reasonable chance to compete consistently. You either have to have the perfect storm of prospects maturing and becoming really good at the same time like Tampa or just go balls to the wall gathering free agents and then breaking up the team, like Florida has. Milwaukee is in an in-between situation this year, with their young core guys starting to peak and management going out and gutting the farm system to try to make a run for a year or two.

 

In short, in baseball, it is extremely hard to win without money, although money doesn't guarantee championships. In football, every team is on a relatively even plane, so the best run organizations win.

[Invader3K]

dlk makes a really good point. Can anyone honestly see the Pirates or Royals making the playoffs in the next 2-3 years? However, I could definitely see a team like the Lions or Panthers making it. Things can turn around that quick in the NFL, and that opportunity just does not really exist in MLB.

[endaround]

Well sure but that's because you can make the playoffs with a sub .500 record. You add 2 more teams to baseball's playoffs and suddenly you'll have a bunch of teams make the playoffs with near .500 records. But that isn't really a good thing if what you want to is award the best team the championship.

[JohnBriggs12]

The main reasons there is apparent parity in the NFL is the short season, national instead of regional TV contracts and drafted players have a more immediate impact.

 

No, the reason is because in the 1950's the NFL owners, in particular, George Halas and Wellington Mara of the two largest market teams, recoginzed that the league was as strong as it's weakest franchise, and they individually sacrificed millions in approving the equal sharing of revenue from their telecasts. Baseball has never had owners with such foresight or care for the game beyond their own pocketbooks. Bill Veeck spoke out for sharing television revenue 50-50 for every game back in the infancy of television arguing that every game is played by 2 teams. He was basically laughed at by the barons running baseball back then.

[davemakovec]

Wellington Mara was the man. Imagine George Steinbrenner saying that baseball would be healthier if the Pittsburgh Pirates could just share some of his TV revenue, and that's what Mara did back in the 50s.

[dlk9s]

Let's not forget that the Panthers have been a pretty competitive franchise. Not consistently good, but they've had some very nice seasons in their short history, including a Super Bowl appearance. And the Lions are actually a pretty good example of my point. They haven't been terrible because of financial inequities. They've been terrible because they didn't know how to put together a good team. Now that they finally have management in place that seems to have a clue, they have made better personnel moves and look like they could make the playoffs within the next year or two or three. Also, I don't know if it's fair to say "you can make the playoffs with a sub .500 record" in the NFL. Yes, the Seahawks did, but that was the first time it ever happened. It was a freak occurrence. Let's not forget the the Padres came really close to that feat a few years ago.

 

I can actually see the Royals making the playoffs within the next few years. They might have a perfect storm finally brewing with a ton of young talent about to appear on the scene. And it's not like they are in a powerhouse division.

[jackalope02ca]

The NHL isn't a perfect system with the hard cap but it's something that baseball needs to look into. The only big problem with the NHL cap which is directly linked to revenue and goes up or down yearly is that owners can stash their mistakes in the minors. There are quite a few NHL calibre players playing in the minors now because while they are still good enough to play in the NHL they are no longer worth what they are paid. So the NHL team waives the guy and when no one claims him can stash the overpaid player in the minors and remove his salary from the cap as minor league players don't count against the cap no matter what they make. If the player wants to get paid he reports. That's why guys like Wade Redden are making $6.5 million which is a very large NHL salary to ride the buses in the minors. Can you imagine Pujols signing for $300 million and then breaking down after 7 years and getting waived and then if he wants his cash he has to report to a place like Nashville to ride the buses?

[1992casey]

No, the reason is because in the 1950's the NFL owners…

 

It was the early 1960s actually, but the point remains the same. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Revenue sharing is a much larger factor than the cap when it comes to teams having a relatively equal chance of competing.

 

The NFL followed the American Football League's lead and adopted revenue sharing after Pete Rozelle became commissioner. Wellington Mara is the large market owner who championed this cause.

 

One huge key was that only half of the NFL teams had TV contracts at the time revenue sharing was enacted.

[MessiahRp]

Well sure but that's because you can make the playoffs with a sub .500 record. You add 2 more teams to baseball's playoffs and suddenly you'll have a bunch of teams make the playoffs with near .500 records. But that isn't really a good thing if what you want to is award the best team the championship.

That might be true in the NFL but if a MLB team can't win a best of 5 or best of 7 then they weren't the best team. It's not like there is a possibility of a one game fluke elimination in Baseball.

[DHonks]

I thought most NHL teams were always teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Tickets are far too expensive for the sport. Baseball is the only reasonably priced American spectator sport...so it has no economic problems. I wish players would realize that by taking a massive salary (far more than they could ever need...like $20 million/season) they are hurting their teams chances of being competitive.

[jackalope02ca]

No most NHL teams aren't teetering on the brink of bankrupcy. Most are rock solid. The NHL's problem is they have an idiot for a commissionaire who thought he'd take hockey from Canada to the Sunbelt. Teams in Atlanta, Florida,, Nashville and Phoenix are in trouble all the time but the rest seem ok. There are individual teams that could be successful given proper ownership and a new arena (Islanders) but there are a team or two like that in every sport. The fact of the matter is you could move 2 more teams to southern Ontario and sell out nightly. A team would do great in Seattle as well and possibly Portland. The idiot in charge though doesn't want to move franchises so they continue to pull hockey down and give it a bad name. There is talk of bringing franchises back to Winnipeg and Quebec City. Neither centre is large enough to support a team long term which is why they left in the first place. Again an idiot in charge.

[GAME05]

opinions of sports finances probably has a lot to do with the team you root for. deep down, any new MLB financial plan is just saying 'I want to give MY team a better chance at winning.'

 

the Superbowl got its best ratings ever when two of its best teams were playing, and baseball is structured so that Boston and New York will always be a factor. the NBA is the same way--everybody but us doesn't really want to see the Bucks in the NBA Finals. maybe the MLB doesn't have it totally wrong that they've established a system where the teams that will get the best Playoff and World Series TV ratings will almost always be in the Playoffs. i have my doubts that MLB could survive without the Yankees or Red Sox or Dodgers, and if so, then maybe it's beneficial that they each have a better-than-not chance at making the Playoffs every year. every year we typically see 6 major-market teams and 2 scrappy small-market teams, which are ideal ingredients for good TV ratings.

 

the NFL survives by building its brand through supporting the lesser-ran teams, but Baseball survives by supporting its most popular ones. different strategy, same result.