Is it time for a salary cap?

[LASportsFan1996]

No

[rcs15]

From the recent events of the Marlins-Blue Jays blockbuster, and the constant domination of big market teams, it seems like MLB should go the way of the NBA, NHL, and NFL. A salary cap in the MLB may actually prevent the constant liqudation from small market teams and creates a competitive balance throughout the league due to the salary cap floor. This would prevent major fire sales and prevent sleezy owners from pocketing the money and leaving their franchise to wallow in medocrity.

You are implying there isn't already an extremely competitive balance in major league baseball because of no cap. And that is completely untrue. If you want to see unbalance, look at the NBA. A sport with a cap, and yet only 4 or 5 teams every year have a real chance to win the title.

[Pittz]

There's no way MLB has the parity of the NFL, and I don't really follow hockey but I think they also beat baseball.

[SpecialFNK]

You are implying there isn't already an extremely competitive balance in major league baseball because of no cap. And that is completely untrue. If you want to see unbalance, look at the NBA. A sport with a cap, and yet only 4 or 5 teams every year have a real chance to win the title.

1 or 2 players can make a huge difference in basketball. not so much in baseball.

my previous post. I hate being the last post on the bottom of a page. ugh.

[davids22]

Here are the main points

1. MLB has the greatest parity of any other sport by a huge margin

Stopped reading there.

There's a reason the NFL is the most popular sport in the US. It has the most parity by far.

I'm sorry, but when one team has won 27 out of 106 possible championships (over 1/4th of all championships ever), something is wrong.

With the NBA, you have 66 total NBA Titles, with the Celtics winning 17 (over 25%) and the Lakers 16 (24%). Together, two teams winning half of the titles is not parity.

And now the NFL. The numbers are spread much thinner. In the Superbowl era (46 Superbowls so far), the Steelers lead with 6 championships (13%). If you include NFL championships (pre-1966), you add another 47 championships to the totals. The Packers would then lead that combo, having won 13 total championships (14% of all championships/superbowls). The Bears would finish second with 9 total championships. But then you also have to consider how these championship numbers are skewed due to the fact that the first 20 years or so of football's existence, there was not many teams in the league, giving an easy way for the Packers and Bears to win a lot of championships early. Going by Superbowl numbers is a far more accurate measure for showing it's parity.

[abe_froman]

Stopped reading there.

There's a reason the NFL is the most popular sport in the US.
.

yes,its called the style of the game,it has nothing to do with salary structure.the nfl past baseball way before the nfl had a cap.be honest you'd still watch no matter what what players were making or how much teams spent

[Jeffy25]

Stopped reading there.

There's a reason the NFL is the most popular sport in the US. It has the most parity by far.

I'm sorry, but when one team has won 27 out of 106 possible championships (over 1/4th of all championships ever), something is wrong.

Context, the Yankees were one of 16 teams for a very long time in baseball history, and there was no playoff system. No longer will a team be able to run up that many championships, same in the NFL.

The playoff structure dilutes this.

With the NBA, you have 66 total NBA Titles, with the Celtics winning 17 (over 25%) and the Lakers 16 (24%). Together, two teams winning half of the titles is not parity.

And now the NFL. The numbers are spread much thinner. In the Superbowl era (46 Superbowls so far), the Steelers lead with 6 championships (13%). If you include NFL championships (pre-1966), you add another 47 championships to the totals. The Packers would then lead that combo, having won 13 total championships (14% of all championships/superbowls). The Bears would finish second with 9 total championships. But then you also have to consider how these championship numbers are skewed due to the fact that the first 20 years or so of football's existence, there was not many teams in the league, giving an easy way for the Packers and Bears to win a lot of championships early. Going by Superbowl numbers is a far more accurate measure for showing it's parity.

the MLB has more champions in the last decade then the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL, and they have the smallest number of teams that actually make the playoffs.

in the MLB, no team loses more than 60% of their games, or wins more than 60% of their games. This happens repeatedly in the NFL, NBA, and NHL. Now part of this is because they play less games, but when you extrapolate teams histories, it's not even funny how much closer MLB teams are to each other (first to last) than in any other sport.

The Yankees have the best winning percentage in MLB history .568, the Rays have the worst .454. A difference of .114

The NFL, the Bears have a .579 winning percentage (going back to 1920), or you can go by the Cowboys since 1960 with a .573. Both ahead of the Yankees.

The worst? The Bucs, with a .398, far worse than the Rays, and a difference of .181

The NHL? The Canadians have a .588, The Blue Jackets have a .445, a difference of .143

The NBA? The Lakers have a .620! The Bobcats a .360, a difference of .260


The MLB is far closer.

And if you want to go by different champions, since the MLB has carried 30 teams, they have had more different champions than any other sport.


Yes, the MLB has the greatest parity of any other sport (of the big 4)

[rcs15]

yes, baseball needs a salary cap.

"sometimes" smaller market teams can have contending teams. how is that working out teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City? if you're a fan of these teams, I feel bad for you. these teams have no chance. sure Pittsburgh was doing well for a time this season. but in order for a team like Pittsburgh to be competitive they not only need to have everything go right for themselves, but for things to not go right for other teams.

the Rays are not a good example. they were so bad for so long.

a salary floor is what is ridiculous. this is what will cause stupid spending. imagine a team like Pittsburgh or Kansas City NEEDING to increase their payroll. so instead of doing so wisely, they simply overpay one or more players. so now you have player X making more than he deserves. problem is then you have player Y on another team who feels he is better than player X but making less, so he now wants to be paid more. it turns into dominos because multiple players want to make more than the one player who was overpaid JUST to get that team above the salary floor.

sorry, but right now a team like the Yankees are a joke. sure spending money doesn't always put a contending team on the field, but it sure as hell gives that spending team an advantage.

put in a salary cap. lets see what teams can do on an even playing level. then we will see who is better.

Is the Pirates and Royals lack of success due to "no money" (or to put it more accurately, a reluctantcy to spend it) or is it due to poor decision making at the top for the last decade plus?

You can't just throw out the Rays success because they don't follow your theory. They are proof that sustained success is accomplishable with good management.

To me this is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. There is great parity in baseball already. You can't cater to teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City who don't even do things most of the time to help themselves anyways.

[rcs15]

yes,its called the style of the game,it has nothing to do with salary structure.the nfl past baseball way before the nfl had a cap.be honest you'd still watch no matter what what players were making or how much teams spent

And I would add in gambling.

It's a joke to think the NFL is the most popular sport in the world right now because of parity.

[SpecialFNK]

this isn't really the same as a salary cap, but I hate the way contracts are done. you pay a player for what he has already done, rather than for what he will do. how often do we see a player sign with a new team based on what he has done, only to have that player not produce they way he was expected or the way he is being paid.
I think all contracts should be some done with some type of incentives. you could have your base salary, but in the contract were incentives. you want to get paid like one of the best in the game, then fine, earn it on the field the next season.
now there are problems with this. if a player gets injured which isn't cause by something he necessarily did himself, then obviously he is not going to reach those incentives.

[Jeffy25]

And I would add in gambling.

It's a joke to think the NFL is the most popular sport in the world right now because of parity.

Right.


They are the most popular because they play on Sundays (when everybody is home).

It's a battle of war, people relate.

It's easier to follow a game, the action is continous, and it's just a joy for a casual fan to watch

And because they only play 16 games, so each game is immensly important.

In baseball, with 162 games, you can lose a few and it not matter. In the NFL, losing a divisional game can cost you your season. In baseball, there is so much time to make it up.

And finally, fantasy football. It's once a week, it's easy to keep up with, you can be casual fan and do it. In baseball, it's a much longer season, takes a lot longer, and a lot more attention to be able to do.


Football is more popular for a lot of reasons, none of them are because of a salary cap or parity.

[SpecialFNK]

I consider it a problem when you can almost make it a lock that the Yankees will make the post season no matter what. what are the numbers, 17 of the last 18 years? and what happened after the year they didn't make the playoffs? they went out and threw so much money to bring in free agents. IMO that is ridiculous.
now you have an extra wild card. the Yankees will never miss the playoffs again.

spending doesn't guarantee a competitive team, but a team like the Yankees surely have an advantage.
good management helps, so does good scouting and player development.
but teams that have the ability to spend more just have an advantage.

[ccugrad1]

this isn't really the same as a salary cap, but I hate the way contracts are done. you pay a player for what he has already done, rather than for what he will do. how often do we see a player sign with a new team based on what he has done, only to have that player not produce they way he was expected or the way he is being paid.
I think all contracts should be some done with some type of incentives. you could have your base salary, but in the contract were incentives. you want to get paid like one of the best in the game, then fine, earn it on the field the next season.
now there are problems with this. if a player gets injured which isn't cause by something he necessarily did himself, then obviously he is not going to reach those incentives.

I would like to see contracts happen like the NFL, where you have a contract, but only a certain amount is guaranteed. The problem with baseball today is people's response to everything is, "Oh, they just need to spend more." Problem being is that money today doesn't go as far as it used to because salaries have gotten so far out of hand. Let's say I am the GM of Kansas City and I am told to spend 30 million dollars. Based on last year's Free Agency, here is what I could get for 30 milion:

1) SP Bruce Chen-- 2 years, 9 million (4.5 million)

2) LF Jason Kubel-- 2 years, 15 million (7.5 million)

3) SP Joe Saunders-- 1 year 6 million (6 million)

4) RP Matt Capps-- 1 year, $4,750,000

5) 2B Jamey Carroll-- 2 years, $6,750,000 (3.375 million)

6) SS Alex Gonzalez-- 1 year, $4,250,000

So I have spent as GM $30,375,000 in salaries and let me ask you all honestly, am I an closer to a World Series, or even the playoffs, with those signings?

[Mike515089]

I will say yes if there is a salary minimum as well.

[SpecialFNK]

what does a salary minimum do?