Is it time to establish a salary cap in the MLB?

[Eddiehitsthefoulpole]

It would also be difficult to establish a means of getting teams toward the limits. What would the cap figure be? Minimum cap figures are usually set at 75% of the upper figure. When the NBA first put its cap in place teams like the Lakers and Celtics were way over it while the Bucks (who were very good at the time) were underneath it. The original plan was to have the teams over the cap get down to the cap by reducing the percentage by which those were over the cap on a yearly basis. They also allowed teams to resign their own free agents even if it put them over the cap. Because of a rapid growth in league revenue during the 80s, the Lakers, Celtics, and 76ers added big contracts every year and still got closer to the cap limit while the Bucks were handcuffed most of that time. Even today the NBA has all sorts of exceptions to prevent teams from having to completely dismantle in order to stay under the cap, and to allow weak teams to try and improve. Basketball is similar to baseball because of the guaranteed contracts. Football does not have those guaranteed contracts which allows for restructuring of contracts so that the good teams can hang on to more of their established players. I think that the best we are going to get is a luxury tax. I think that the best we can hope for is a higher tax rate. An irony in the union's stance against salary caps is that they usually end up in an increase in salaries. I remember listening to Robert Smith talking once on ESPN radio, and he said that the year before the cap in the NFL was adopted the players received about 35% of total league revenue, now they are at about 55-60% (I can't remember any more) of the total league revenue for salaries.

[jerichoholicninja]

No one is denying there is a problem. The majority of posters feel, and I totally agree with them, that a salary cap will do nothing to fix the problem.

[endaround]

It would also be difficult to establish a means of getting teams toward the limits. What would the cap figure be? Minimum cap figures are usually set at 75% of the upper figure. When the NBA first put its cap in place teams like the Lakers and Celtics were way over it while the Bucks (who were very good at the time) were underneath it. The original plan was to have the teams over the cap get down to the cap by reducing the percentage by which those were over the cap on a yearly basis. They also allowed teams to resign their own free agents even if it put them over the cap. Because of a rapid growth in league revenue during the 80s, the Lakers, Celtics, and 76ers added big contracts every year and still got closer to the cap limit while the Bucks were handcuffed most of that time. Even today the NBA has all sorts of exceptions to prevent teams from having to completely dismantle in order to stay under the cap, and to allow weak teams to try and improve. Basketball is similar to baseball because of the guaranteed contracts. Football does not have those guaranteed contracts which allows for restructuring of contracts so that the good teams can hang on to more of their established players. I think that the best we are going to get is a luxury tax. I think that the best we can hope for is a higher tax rate. An irony in the union's stance against salary caps is that they usually end up in an increase in salaries. I remember listening to Robert Smith talking once on ESPN radio, and he said that the year before the cap in the NFL was adopted the players received about 35% of total league revenue, now they are at about 55-60% (I can't remember any more) of the total league revenue for salaries.

 

Of course that is the case. Before the salary cap there was no real free agency in the NFL.

[Ennder]

The NFL cannot be compared to MLB in a remotely useful way. FA still make squat in the NFL to be honest and it has only gone down as years have gone by. The leagues are just so completely different you can't hope to treat them the same.

[Bombers]

3 of the top 5 team salaries are playing in the Championship Series. Like I have always said; spending has a direct impact on making the playoffs and this year the 4 teams left are in the top 10.

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

 

Granted, St Louis has done it by spending a decent amount but having an awesome farm team to pull from.

[jerichoholicninja]

3 of the top 5 team salaries are playing in the Championship Series. Like I have always said; spending has a direct impact on making the playoffs and this year the 4 teams left are in the top 10.

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

 

Granted, St Louis has done it by spending a decent amount but having an awesome farm team to pull from.

 

And the teams that have been eliminated? I don't have the numbers in front of me but I'm pretty sure Tampa Bay is bottom third. Pittsburgh and Oakland probably are too and Atlanta has to be in the middle.

[rondoman]

http://mlb.si.com/2013/10/07/mlb-playoff-teams-payroll-rays-athletics-indians-pirates/

 

The average ranking of the 10 postseason teams is 14.7, an all-time low (as in higher numbers, lower ranking) — right at the middle of the pack, Meanwhile the average of those payrolls is just 6.8 percent above the average for all 30 teams.

[Baldkin]

http://mlb.si.com/2013/10/07/mlb-playoff-teams-payroll-rays-athletics-indians-pirates/

 

The average ranking of the 10 postseason teams is 14.7, an all-time low (as in higher numbers, lower ranking) — right at the middle of the pack, Meanwhile the average of those payrolls is just 6.8 percent above the average for all 30 teams.

 

That's a pretty disingenuous article, considering this is only the 2nd season that there were 10 teams (1/3 of the league) making the playoffs, so of course the average payroll of teams will trend towards the middle.

[Bombers]

Lets take a quick look at the Championship Series opponents over the past 6 years (since 2008 when the Brewers made it as a wild card)

 

Team Salary Rank in parentheses

* denotes World Series Winner

 

2008

Rays(#29) over Red Sox(#4)

Phillies(#13)* over Dodgers (#8)

 

2009

Yankees (#1)* over Angels (#6)

Phillies(#7) over Dodgers (#9)

 

2010

Rangers(#27) over Yankees(#1)

Giants(#10)* over Phillies (#4)

 

2011

Rangers (#13) over Tigers (#10)

Cardinals (#11)* over Brewers (#17)

 

2012

Tigers (#5) over Yankees (#1)

Giants (#7)* over Cardinals (#9)

 

2013

Tigers (#5) vs Red Sox (#3)

Dodgers (#2) vs Cardinals (#10)

 

I am not sure how one cannot make the procolmation that spending (especially being in the top 15 in MLB) doesn't have a positive correlation to not only making the playoffs but clearly making the Championship games. The reality is, JUST making the playoffs is almost equivelant to winning the World Series for the small market teams. Teams like the 2011 Brewers must sacrafice the future to win now. So unless you can continuously outspend your neighbor, you will most likely be a splash in the Championship pan. Looking at the time frame from above, here are some % to chew on:

 

Teams ranked in top 10 = 75% of Championship Series teams (18 of 24)

Teams ranked from 11-20 = 17% of Championship Series teams (4 of 24)

Teams ranked from 21-30 = 8% of Championship Series teams (2 of 24)

 

I guess I just don't see the parity.

[nate82]

 

I guess I just don't see the parity.

 

Just because there will be a salary cap does not mean there will be parity or even come close to parity. When was the last time the Browns were relevant in the NFL? How about the Jaguars which are a complete joke right now is the salary cap helping them become relevant? What about Tampa Bay in the NFL are they relevant also because of the salary cap?

 

If money really does buy championships then why did the Yankees and the Blue Jays not make the playoffs? I believe you can look at all of the sports and come to the conclusion that the teams that spend the most will be competitive teams and the teams that do not will not be competitive. This is true with or without a salary cap.

[Baldkin]

 

I guess I just don't see the parity.

 

Just because there will be a salary cap does not mean there will be parity or even come close to parity. When was the last time the Browns were relevant in the NFL? How about the Jaguars which are a complete joke right now is the salary cap helping them become relevant? What about Tampa Bay in the NFL are they relevant also because of the salary cap?

 

If money really does buy championships then why did the Yankees and the Blue Jays not make the playoffs? I believe you can look at all of the sports and come to the conclusion that the teams that spend the most will be competitive teams and the teams that do not will not be competitive. This is true with or without a salary cap.

 

Because the Yankees poured money into guys over 35 and expected them to stay healthy for a full MLB season?

 

Injuries happen, in all sports, and saying that two horribly run franchises are examples of the salary cap not working in the NFL is, well, just silly. That's like saying the Bucks are a wonderful example of why it doesn't work in the NBA.... when in reality, they have simply been horribly run from the top down for 25 years.

 

Right now, the Brewers (and Oakland, and Tampa, and...) not only have to be smarter than *everyone* else, and play stupid salary games (like Tampa keeping Wil Myers in the minors for 2 months), they also have almost no hope of keeping their own players through the length of their careers.

[rondoman]

Here is what they have in common:

 

The MLB and NFL are professional sports leagues.

 

Thats it, that's where the comparisons end. To compare MLB to the NFL is apples and oranges, as brought up previously in this very thread.

[rondoman]

In the last 13 years, every MLB team, except the Toronto Blue Jays and Kansas City Royals, has appeared in the post-season.

 

Fifteen of the 30 teams have made the expanded playoffs in the last two years, and 21 teams have made the post-season in the last five years.

 

Since 2000, only the St. Louis Cardinals, Boston Red Sox and San Francisco Giants have won more than one World Series – two each. Nine different teams have won the World Series in that time frame.

 

 

Boy, it sure is a good thing that The Same Teams Don't Win Every Year in football, isn't it? Ehhh, wait. How come those teams in the NFL conference championship games looked so familiar? Oh. Maybe it's because three of the four also played in those conference championship games last year. How often does that happen in baseball? Ummmm, never in the wild-card era -- and not under any system since 1991-92.

 

Boy, it sure is a good thing The Same Teams Don't Win Every Year in football. Isn't it? You never know what team might shock the world and show up in the Super Bowl, right? Well, not so right. Did you know that since the 2000 season, the Patriots, Ravens, Colts and Steelers have represented the AFC in every Super Bowl but one?

 

Finally, there's this: Bet you didn't know that 20 of the 32 NFL franchises (62.5 percent) have won NONE of the past 25 Super Bowls. But over the past 25 World Series, more than half the teams in baseball (16 of 30) have won at least one.

[nate82]

 

Right now, the Brewers (and Oakland, and Tampa, and...) not only have to be smarter than *everyone* else, and play stupid salary games (like Tampa keeping Wil Myers in the minors for 2 months), they also have almost no hope of keeping their own players through the length of their careers.

 

A salary cap would not help in keeping their own players through the length of their careers either.

[Bombers]

 

Right now, the Brewers (and Oakland, and Tampa, and...) not only have to be smarter than *everyone* else, and play stupid salary games (like Tampa keeping Wil Myers in the minors for 2 months), they also have almost no hope of keeping their own players through the length of their careers.

 

A salary cap would not help in keeping their own players through the length of their careers either.

Baldkin - that is exactly what I am saying. They have to do everything perfectly and have a small window to do it in.

 

 

Nate - I am confused on how it wouldn't. If every team could only spend X, the Tigers wouldn't have been able to open up their wallet and sign prince, or the Yankee's with Sabathia or the Dodgers with Greinke. The list goes on and on. If those teams wanted to sign those players they would have to subtract from their team. In the NFL, Mike Wallace went to the Dolphins, not the Patriots. Mario Williams went to the Buffalo Bills not the Packers. If anything, a salaray cap allows for ALL teams to afford free agents and not just the top half of the league. The Pirates can't sign Greinke, they had to sign Liriano and pray for lightening in a bottle. Which yes, they got but if they had the money they could have just signed them both.

 

I don't see how having a salary cap would be a bad thing. I guess I just don't see it.

[RobertR]

A salary cap is meaningless without substantial revenue sharing. It's amazing to me that people give all the credit to the salary cap to the NFL's seeming parity (which also has a lot to do with short careers and schedules that vary in difficulty) and think that the salary cap is the only thing responsible for that. If you removed the salary cap, but kept all the revenue sharing, you'd theoretically still have a level playing field.

 

I also think it's a paradox that people want teams to be able to sign all their own good free agents but also don't want the same teams to make the playoffs year after year. Player churn is a necessity for that.

 

Now, I agree that the Yankees are out of hand, although they're also out of the playoffs.

 

We also shouldn't ignore the issue that there are bad owners out there. Anybody expecting Jeffrey Loria to win anything in the near or long-term?

[jerichoholicninja]

Anybody expecting Jeffrey Loria to win anything in the near or long-term?

 

Yes. The Marlins are stacked with young talent. After next season he will probably open up his wallet and buy a bunch of free agents and make a post season run like he's done before. I don't get all the Loria hate. Since he's been an owner he's won 2 world series. How many other owners can say that?

[brewcrewdue80]

Are we forgetting that the high payroll teams not only win the FA market but in affording their hits in drafts? Dodgers sign Kershaw keep him like Kemp and add Grienke/Ryu.

 

I think when you compare top 15 in payroll making the playoffs and the bottom 15 making the playoffs the difference just may be the homegrown guy the bigger salaried team was able to keep as well as bringing in a FA that same season.

 

It's not just signing FAs that lead to Playoffs it's also signing Effective Draft selections homegrown to long extensions. Yankees keeping Jeter all those years.

Remove Tampa from the bottom 15 since they've been so successful the last 5seasons and how's the comparison of top 15 to bottom 15? Tampa makes up what half of the bottom 15 playoff appearances?

 

Doesn't change my opinion you wont see a salary cap work in MLB just because the mass amounts of money New York makes for Baseball. If the NFL were 162 games vs 16 you can probably figure the big markets would make too much money to allow a salary cap work.

[torts]

Doesn't change my opinion you wont see a salary cap work in MLB just because the mass amounts of money New York makes for Baseball. If the NFL were 162 games vs 16 you can probably figure the big markets would make too much money to allow a salary cap work.

 

there wont be a salary cap because the MLBPA is the most powerful union in sports and they will never vote to restrict the potential income their members could earn. it has nothing to do with the mass amounts of money New York makes for Baseball... there are plently of other teams who are more than willing to shell out enormous contracts to players they deem worth it, not just the Yankees.

[Bombers]

A salary cap is meaningless without substantial revenue sharing.

I agree. Speaking for myself, I just call it a salaray cap and am encompassing everything the NFL does to even the playing field. But you are 100% correct, revenue sharing is critical. In the end, MLB needs to collect all TV revenue and split it equally amongst the teams. Just like in the NFL. (However in the NFL, they don't allow teams to sell their games. The NFL sells NFC away games as a whole to Fox and AFC Away games to CBS.) I realzie that in baseball, all 30 teams can strike a TV deal, but that is where it has gone wrong. It is one league thus each TV deal should be divided up into 30 equal shares. This is the most critical piece.

[BarneyStinston]

Revenue sharing simply encourages more teams to become like Houston or Florida and pull out ridiculous profits. Robbing the rich to prop up the poor is not just unfair, but just encourages small markets to stay small and sit on the profits siphoned from the Yankees and Red Sox.

[Bombers]

Revenue sharing simply encourages more teams to become like Houston or Florida and pull out ridiculous profits. Robbing the rich to prop up the poor is not just unfair, but just encourages small markets to stay small and sit on the profits siphoned from the Yankees and Red Sox.

But in the NFL you have a salary floor which requires all teams to spend X. I agree that the same requirement would be needed in MLB.

[jerichoholicninja]

But in the NFL you have a salary floor which requires all teams to spend X. I agree that the same requirement would be needed in MLB.

 

I don't. In the NFL, the rookies and young players are paid incredibly much more than in MLB. A salary floor only encourages prolonged mediocrity. The Astros and Marlins are going to be better off in the long run for completely tearing apart their teams. With a salary floor they would have been required to sign pointless veterans just to meet some arbitrary number.

[rondoman]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/01/15/bp.salarycap/?mobile=no

[Baldkin]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/01/15/bp.salarycap/?mobile=no

 

Again, not one mention of revenue sharing. Of course poor teams couldn't afford a salary cap and floor if the Yankees, Dodgers and Angels didn't have to share their 200m+ TV deals.