Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Should there be a MLB salary cap?

Voters
130. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    52 40.00%
  • No

    78 60.00%
Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 271 to 282 of 282
  1. #271
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    35,621
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Without giving me your fuzzy math and giving your reasoning prove to me that the players get less in a cap. Show me something that shows baseball players get a higher percentage of baseball revenues. Show me a link please.
    Burden of proof is on you my friend.


    I know where you are making your mistake. Most of the time a free market does do better. This isn't one of them. I'm not sure why you don't get that the economic benefits of a floor out way the restrictions of the capping effect.
    If you hate the floor thats fine. Thats another discussion and I'm happy to talk about it but to totally dismiss the benefits of a floor and to only concentrate on the capping effect is misleading.
    A floor is horrible for a number of reasons, and I don't see any benefits in it.

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    35,621
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Your assertion that this is true doesn't make it so. And referencing a website that referred to a tennis magazine without providing any references doesn't work for me.

    Obviously a salary cap/ floor can be engineered to move salaries as a percent of revenue in any direction. Set the floor and cap high enough and salaries will go up, set them low enough and salaries will go down. Which way do you think it will be designed?

    Let's be optimistic and say that they set cap at $120 million and the floor at $80 million with the hope to keep team salaries at $98 million on average (where they were last year) and then adjust them annually with the goal of keeping salaries in line with the current salary/revenue average. Would that benefit KC, Pitt, and TB? Could they even make enough to pay the floor? Ignoring the obvious problem of how to get the Yankees under the cap without taking money away from players or keeping the Yankees from filling out their 25 man roster, would this really make the Yankees weaker? It didn't hurt the Red Wings when they implemented the cap in the NHL. Why? Ken Holland is clearly the best GM in hockey, players have taken less money to play for a team that hasn't missed the playoffs in two decades, and Detroit is one of the most iconic teams in hockey. Before the cap they were called the Yankees of hockey because every year they would add an all-star FA to an already elite team and since the cap they continued to be an elite team year in and year out.

    So now the Yankees have cut a third of their payroll, still are a destination team for FA's and they get to keep bringing in more than the Pirates, Rays, and Royals put together (who are now spending $240 million a year together) who are still winning (Rays) and losing (KC) largely on the skill of their FO.

    Or...... You could have the MLB negotiate all of the TV contracts (sorry no more discounts for YES network and NESN) and split the TV revenues evenly between the 30 teams. Then the small market teams could spend more because.... wait for it.... wait for it.... They would actually have the money to spend!!!!! No cap needed.

    Yup, one of the best ways to move salaries around evenly, is to distribute the revenue evenly. And since tv deals are the main commodity for revenue now, it makes the most sense to do that.


    I am yet to see any pro-cap people actually propose a thought out proposal like what you just muttered in your last sentence. And it would work, very very well to accommodate what everyones wants.

    If people want change, they need to make proposals, just saying a salary floor and cap amount isn't going to work and for many reasons.

    Redistribute the revenue fairly and you fix several problems, and eliminate the need for revenue sharing and the luxury tax.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,173
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Burden of proof is on you my friend.



    A floor is horrible for a number of reasons, and I don't see any benefits in it.
    When I'm talking about the benefits of the floor I mean in an economic way for the players.
    As far as the burden of proof, I believe its on you. You were the first one to post and said that a cap takes money away from the players and gives to the owners.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    35,621
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    how often do players take less money to play in a place they want? actually, how many players take less money to play in a NEW place? I can understand a player taking less to play for the team he was most recently with. but I don't really see players taking less money to play for new places.
    Are you talking about in baseball? Or in the NFL, NBA, and NHL? Because it happens all the time in the capped sports.

    agents are trying to get a player the most money period.
    Some players want different things, not everyone is motivated by money alone. Cliff Lee, Albert Pujols are two very recent examples that come to mind. It happens a lot in different sports. Some players want to play close to home, some players want to play where they can win (Allen), some players want to play where they feel the most wanted (Pujols), some players play where they feel most comfortable (Lee), some people want to play where they have memories/hometown feel (Fielder), some players play where they can play the position they want (Beltran) Everyone has different wants and reasonings behind why they sign where they sign. Money isn't always the reason. Most of the above listed people (with the exception of Fielder) I know had a better offer on the table that they turned down to sign where they signed. It isn't always just all about money with every human being.


    I would love to see players taking less money, I just don't see it happening, unless something else is changed in how contracts are given.
    It happens a lot more often than you think then, because it definitely happens every year.


    And none of your complaints are solved by a salary cap.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    35,621
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    When I'm talking about the benefits of the floor I mean in an economic way for the players.
    As far as the burden of proof, I believe its on you. You were the first one to post and said that a cap takes money away from the players and gives to the owners.
    You are literally the one that keeps saying that the players in the MLB make less of the leagues revenue than in other leagues.

    I have said it's not true, because based on the payrolls we know, and the amount the leagues make, it's simply not true.

    You saying otherwise repeatedly doesn't make it true, that's why it's your burden of proof.

    I am dismissing your argument as not true, and it's your argument. You have to prove that your argument is in fact true, otherwise your argument holds no merit, because it is YOUR argument, and you brought it up.

    Your very first post in this thread
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    So many myths in this thread its really difficult to know where to begin. The one I hate the most is " A salary cap takes money from the players and gives more to the owners "
    This is so wrong its not even funny. Since the nfl put in its cap the salaries have almost grown by 400 percent. Baseball is not close to that.

    Of the 4 big sports baseball is the only one without a cap. Baseball players get the lowest percentage of revenues.
    And nobody had argued it prior.

    So yes, it's your burden of proof, and you haven't done it at all, all you have done is just repeatedly said it's so.
    Last edited by Jeffy25; 11-25-2012 at 09:07 PM.

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,173
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    You are literally the one that keeps saying that the players in the MLB make less of the leagues revenue than in other leagues.

    I have said it's not true, because based on the payrolls we know, and the amount the leagues make, it's simply not true.

    You saying otherwise repeatedly doesn't make it true, that's why it's your burden of proof.

    I am dismissing your argument as not true, and it's your argument. You have to prove that your argument is in fact true, otherwise your argument holds no merit, because it is YOUR argument, and you brought it up.

    Your very first post in this thread


    And nobody had argued it prior.

    So yes, it's your burden of proof, and you haven't done it at all, all you have done is just repeatedly said it's so.
    Again you were the first one to post your assertion. You have repeatedly stated that a cap takes money away without ever proving it. You may have thought it was a given but its not.
    Apparently you can post without backing it up but when I question your assertion I must prove it?
    You initiated this. I basically answered you by saying I don't believe you and think its a myth.
    If you were to state that there are baseball gods and I respond no there are not is not the burden of proof on you?
    I posted that it was a myth because I have never seen anyone back up this statement.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,430
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Again you were the first one to post your assertion. You have repeatedly stated that a cap takes money away without ever proving it. You may have thought it was a given but its not.
    Apparently you can post without backing it up but when I question your assertion I must prove it?
    You initiated this. I basically answered you by saying I don't believe you and think its a myth.
    If you were to state that there are baseball gods and I respond no there are not is not the burden of proof on you?
    I posted that it was a myth because I have never seen anyone back up this statement.
    Who cares who said what and when? I think that we can all agree that a cap could raise or lower salaries depending on where the floor and cap are set. I personally think that the logical assumption would be that the cap/floor owners would try to implement would suppress salaries, why wouldn't they want that?

    Mariner4life, don't you thing a revenue sharing scheme something along the lines of what I proposed would be far more beneficial to small market teams than a salary cap?

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,173
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Who cares who said what and when? I think that we can all agree that a cap could raise or lower salaries depending on where the floor and cap are set. I personally think that the logical assumption would be that the cap/floor owners would try to implement would suppress salaries, why wouldn't they want that?

    Mariner4life, don't you thing a revenue sharing scheme something along the lines of what I proposed would be far more beneficial to small market teams than a salary cap?
    Gasman I appreciate that you are open minded and see that salaries could rise under a cap. Seeing that salaries rose in the other big 3 my assumption is that salaries would go up.
    As far as revenue sharing goes I feel that this would be included in a cap.

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,430
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Gasman I appreciate that you are open minded and see that salaries could rise under a cap. Seeing that salaries rose in the other big 3 my assumption is that salaries would go up.
    As far as revenue sharing goes I feel that this would be included in a cap.
    I would be amazed to see salaries go up. Once they control the salary limits why would they pay more? Even if they were revenue neutral when passed there would be nothing (except a lock out) to keep them from dropping salaries in the future.

    And there is no guarantee revenue sharing would be part of a cap and I never see any pro-cap people advocate for it. It should be what this debate is about because that will actually help small market teams. A cap will hurt them.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,430
    vCash
    1500
    Would more people take a straight cap/floor or an almost comprehensive revenue sharing plan? If you can only have one which do you pick?

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    8,833
    vCash
    1500
    I actually like the idea of calculating the revenue amount each game brings in and splitting it 50/50.

    For example lets say the Pirates play at the Dodgers. The game is broadcasted on both local stations. Lets say for simplicity the Dodgers get 150 million a year in their TV deal and 150 games are televised. The Pirates also have 150 games televised but only get 45 million per season. That means the Dodgers get an average of 1 million per game and the Pirates 300k. Lets also say gate receipts total 1 million for the Dodgers that day and they also take in an additional 200k in parking and 500k in concessions and souvenirs. Again just ignore the numbers I made them up for simplicity sake. So that makes the total revenue for the game 3 million. Since both teams are responsible for the product you split it 50/50 and give each team 1.5 million.

    This would more evenly and accurately in my opinion split revenue but still give large market teams an advantage and there would still be an incentive on the small market teams to generate as much revenue as possible.

    Follow Me On Twitter: @battling_bucs

    It's Back!: Battling Bucs

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,430
    vCash
    1500
    It would certainly be better than the personal revenue model.

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •