none of these things will be a detriment to the sport, not as much as pooling all the revenue and distributing it would.
People can argue the merits of parity in baseball; how to define it, whether it actually exists, is it good for the game, etc. It's irrelevant to a salary cap discussion. The point isn't to make the playoffs a revolving door system where everyone gets a turn, it's to make it so some teams can't exploit a competitive advantage in building an organization to such an extreme that it becomes ridiculous.
Without a salary cap, it allows big market teams (who would still have a huge spending advantage with a cap) to just exploit that advantage endlessly as the Dodgers are now trying to do, as the Yankees have done in the past decade, as the Red Sox did for a couple of years and the Phillies as well. The Angels and the Tigers may also be going in that direction too.
A salary cap would force these super intelligent teams to use their advantage more wisely, instead of more loosely.
I don't understand why people in favor of unlimited spending say "Well, teams like Tampa or Oakland have proven that you can occasionally win if you're run by a genius" but then say it'd be horrible for baseball if the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Phillies and Dodgers would have to be only slightly smarter than they currently are.
What if there was a salary cap ceiling of $150,000,000 annually and a floor of $50,000,000. Would that really be a bad thing for the sport? Other than the Yankees and Dodgers, no team in baseball would be struggling to get under that cap. According to FOXSports, the third highest expected 2013 payroll is the Phillies who are down to $158M.
Personally, I'm not convinced that parity is a good thing in sports. I like that the Detroit Red Wings and New England Patriots have been great teams in their respective sports for a long period of time. However, they don't quite do it the way the Yankees did and like the Dodgers are trying to do.
Last edited by mtf; 02-08-2013 at 07:43 PM.
And Secondly this is the most acute thing you said, teams with these big monetary advantages don't loose them, they just need to be smarter, and not rely on money to make up for mistakes that they made. I knew ahead of time that the Ubaldo to Cleveland trade was going to work out poorly for Cleveland. I feel bad, and at the time I was hoping it worked out because the Indians can't afford to make big trade mistakes like that. The Angels can though.
Thirdly, i agree if you set the cap high enough it wont make an impact on player overall salary, very few teams will be affected by it at all. Hell lets say they instituted a cap of 180 mill, but told everyone that it wont come into effect for another 5 years. That's long enough that most bad contracts will be off the books for any team. Also, i don't see a floor as necessary because it just makes teams spend on bad players. And their aren't many teams that sit bellow 40-50 mill. Just get rid of the luxary tax so they can't continue to make free money that they have no intention of using.
I suggested the floor simply because many of the anti-cap zealots will cry fowl if there isn't some sort of discomfort imposed on small market teams like the ceiling would do to the big market teams. They want to make sure the revenue sharing money is not pocketed by ownership while their organization is rebuilding, like Houston, Pittsburg or Oakland. Right now, the big spenders outspend the poorer teams by about 4:1 or maybe even as high as 5:1 by the time the Dodgers roster is set.
A salary cap ceiling/floor of $150m/$50m respectively still gives them a sizable advantage, it just brings it down and forces certain teams to use their massive advantage a little wiser, and brings them more in line with some of the mid-market teams.
Do I have to get the statistics out again?
Not only does Baseball have a General Distribution of Payroll indicative of parity, a payroll floor and or ceiling literally has no effect on said distribution.
It simply decreases the nominal differentiation.
Seriously, do you people really want another lecture on Mean, Medians, and Standard Deviation?
Owners who refuse to invest in their team should in no way handicap owners who invest heavily in their teams.
I feel sorry for fans of franchises whom have owners who are clearly more interested in maximizing profits at a minimal payroll as opposed to owners who are interested in profit and wins, independent of overall nominal payroll numbers.
People who favor a salary cap or ceiling do so out of political predilections against moneyed interests and a desire to forcibly take money away from successful and profitable franchises. It has nothing to do with parity.
Just look at the friggin Yankees...how many Championships have $200 Million payrolls actually produced?
And in response to your question about the Yankees championships, I believe they've won 5 in the last 16 years since becoming the highest spending team in baseball. I would say that's irrelevant though, since it's a straw man argument since championships in baseball are not awarded to the best team, they're awarded to the luckiest good team. The Yankees ridiculous spending has helped them to win the division and get a place in the playoff lottery in 13 of the last 18 years, and a wild card spot in 4 of those other 5 years. I'd say that the spending has served them quite well.
I'm only bringing referencing the Yankees history because you asked the question. I think they've done some other things very well to contribute to long-term success, but the ability and willingness to add payroll to such an extreme has definitely been a very important asset in their history over the past 2 decades.
An interesting aside: The Yankees have won exactly one World Series with a payroll over $100 Million dollars.
The current size of the New York payroll is a function of over-payment to formerly elite players and one or two major spending binges (Alex, 2009).
Their wins are not a function of their payroll; their payroll is a function of their wins.
Payroll caps mean salary caps...which means more of the profits of baseball go into the pockets of the owners and less goes to the actual people playing the game and entertaining us.
I would rather Alex or Pujols or Felix have an appropriate share for the value they bring to the owners.
The Yankees make the playoffs consistently because they are benefitting from a "stars aligned" coming of age of generational talent centered on players like Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera, an age that is quite notably coming to an end.
The franchise is currently forced to pay exorbitant amount of money out of its necessity to pay homage to this generation of players and attempt to reproduce via Free Agency the confluence of talent that created a dynasty.
If no one is noticing, even the Yankees are finding this financial situation a major stress and albatross contracts including AJ Burnett, Alex Rodriquez, CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeria, et al have brought them to the lovely position they are in today.
High payrolls are not a problem...idiot ownership is.
Payroll floors do nothing to address the supposed issue of fairness in baseball and payroll caps only benefit owner profit margins.
So what is the point to them?
As for the cap only benefiting owners profit margins, that's false. I'm not saying it couldn't or wouldn't happen, but it's not the only effect. The primary effect would be limiting a huge advantage available only to a select few lucky organizations.
I'm not sure why you took us down Yankee history. They are not the only team to utilize this advantage, although they are definitely the main perpetrator. The Phillies, Red Sox, and now the Dodgers have also taken advantage.
Last edited by mtf; 02-10-2013 at 06:52 PM.
Astros will rise again.
As promised, my delayed response.
Curious. Do you feel there is a sufficient lack of evidence? Or do you believe it's 100% false that a salary cap would control players salaries as a whole?This kind of reminds me of the lineup protection myth. On the surface it seems logical. A good hitter behind a good hitter provides protection. It is understandable why someone would believe in it. But as you already know ( and have explained very well to others) there is no evidence to support that assumption.
I.e. Are you just not convinced one way or the other because of a lack of evidence either direction? Or do you feel that it's a myth?
Might I respond with a question.Same goes for the cap takes money away from the players and gives to the owners myth. On the surface it sounds logical.
Cap = restriction Restriction is bad for the players
No cap = unlimited Unlimited is good for the players
If a cap didn't limit the players salaries, then why did we have the 94 strike? Why did the owners almost unanimously vote for one and why were the players willing to give up on their incomes entirely to strike? If it didn't do exactly this, why did we have the strike?
I feel that the percentage of revenue in the MLB going toward MLB salaries being the highest of any other sport, and this being the only one of the big four without a cap is plenty of evidence.Posters give big long stories and wonderful ideas of how lineup protection exists but never really give any evidence to support their claim. The same goes here. No evidence.
One could say each of the four sports are universally different, and they are all different, even the number of teams in each sport. But the evidence to me seems to support the theory.
I'm fairly certain this was done the last time we discussed this.In my opinion, in order to say that a cap takes money away from the players and gives to the owners you must show the numbers of revenue splitting from the big 4 sports in the last 10 years or so.
Just giving you rough numbers
MLB player salaries are about 3.5 billion, and the league makes about 7.5 billion (47%)
In the NFL, player salaries are about 4 billion, and the league makes about 12 billion (33%)
In the NBA, player salaries are right about 2 billion (little less), and the league makes 5 billion (-40%)
In the NHL, player salaries are about 1.4 billion, and the league makes about 3.5 billion (40%)
Obviously these numbers are a little rough, but it gives you a general idea.
I don't see them approaching 50%, even if you are generous with the numbers.