If MLB Had A Hard Salary Cap Like the NBA

then this would be the probable, partial Yankee lineup:
Catcher - Jorge Posada
1B- Nick Johnson
2B - Juan Guzman (former Yankee minor leaguer, currently with Twins)
SS - Derek Jeter
3B - Mike Lowell (former Yankee minor leaguer, currently with Marlins)
LF - Alfonso Soriano
CF - Bernie Wiliams
RF - Juan Rivera / Rickey Ledee / Shane Spencer

Pitchers
Andy Petite
Eric Milton (former Yankee minor leaguer, currently with Twiins)
Ramiro Mendoza
Mariano Rivera

So, you see. Even with a hard NBA-style salary cap, the Yankees would still have one of the strongest teams in MLB.

With regards to last night, think about how weak the Red Sox would be without the ability to attract high priced players.

I also like to remind people that the Yankees re-invest money back into the team, unlike the Dodgers or the Padres, for example, who seem disinterested in fielding a decent team, even though they rake in the dough.

Baseball has a very long history of cheap owners who horde cash and don't care about winning. Recall that the Cubs were on a superstation years before the Yankees. Cub regular season games were able to charge national TV ad revenues, but their management didn't reinvest the money back into the team.

The Orioles of the 1990's are a good example of bad investment (though they did almost win).

Money isn't everything, the desire to win is.

Well, you know how it goes.

The fact is, the Yankees start out with more money than anyone else. They can not only afford to roll more back into salaries than any other team, Steinbrenner's still making a tidy profit. Other teams don't have the licensing deals, the marketing, the stadium, etc.

The Yankees might invest heavily in their team, making a superior product. However, doing so robs the rest of the league of talent. If no one but Yankees fans wants to watch baseball, how long will baseball survive?

Figure out what the Yankees would look like with an NFL-style hard salary cap. There's no guarantee whatsoever they'd have been able to keep even their home-grown talent.

because they have developed their "product". Many other owners could fit Steinbrenner and his shipbuilding company into their back pocket.

I support the luxury tax. If anything, it is too low. Spread it around, but make sure the money gets reinvested in the sport.

The bottom line is the Yankees always have a chance to win because they are committed to it. Other teams do not win because they are committed to something else.

Keep your eye on the ball.

No other team wants to win, only the Yankees do. That's all there is to it. Their massive lucrative TV contracts, impossible to achieve in all but the handful of largest cities, have nothing to do with it.

In the meantime, baseball will lose more and more fans. What's more important to you - the Yankees or the sport itself?

YES TV? That station is what, a couple of years old? Not around in the 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s or 90s. It seems to me that the BRAVES has...a superstation (1 championship with all that TV money) and oh, the CUBS have one as well and you know about them.

I hate to say it, but The Yankees are baseball. If you don't like baseball because the Yanks win...LIKE THEY ALWAYS HAVE WITH OR WITHOUT BIG MONEY...then you were never a baseball fan.

Please see my previous post. The Yankees do a good job reinvesting, but they also have a whole lot more money to start with. Baseball doesn't have revenue sharing either, so it's feast or famine.

(Braves may not have been able to finish it off much, but surely you can't deny their thick checkbook has been able to keep them in the race year after year.)

It is sad that apparently a large group of vocal Yankee fans like yourself just don't see how this disparity will end up killing the sport.

Oh never mind, since I'm just a Yankee hater, I'm not a real baseball fan, am I?

...but avaricious owners like Pohlad and Lindner pocket the money for themselves instead of reinvesting in their teams.

Just my $.02 -

n/t

you won't watch baseball anymore means your not a baseball fan or else you would have given the sport up in the 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's or 70's (if you were alive during any of those decades).

I'm really tired of people dumping their shit on the Yankees and its fans and then feeling insulted when they respond. Your team lost? I'm sorry. The Yankees are not satan, or Republicans. You don't seem to understand...THE YANKEES ARE KEEPING BASEBALL ALIVE. They bring in the money. They have the most fans. They're the favorite baseball team of the state of UTAH for goodness sakes. The Yanks merchandising and large profits are keeping teams like the Devil Rays and Expos alive.

The whole free agency is killing baseball idea didn't hold water in 1970 with Curt Flood and it doesn't hold water now. How fiscally stable is the NHL right now?

For all intents and purposes.

Take the Yankees out of baseball and the sport would have folded up during the great depression, during WWII, and after the strike in the mid 1990's.

2003 MLB Team Payroll
Team Payroll Average
N.Y. Yankees $149,710,995 $5,346,821
New York Mets 116,868,613 4,029,952
Los Angeles 105,897,619 4,072,985
Atlanta 104,622,210 3,874,897
Texas 104,526,470 3,484,216
Boston 96,631,677 3,578,951
Seattle 87,184,500 3,229,056
St. Louis 83,150,895 2,682,287
San Francisco 82,352,167 3,167,391
Chicago Cubs 80,743,333 2,883,690
Arizona 80,657,500 3,226,300
Anaheim 79,031,667 2,927,099
Philadelphia 70,780,000 2,440,690
Houston 70,489,840 2,711,148
Baltimore 69,452,275 2,394,906
Colorado 66,981,667 2,232,722
Cincinnati 56,979,777 2,034,992
Minnesota 55,605,000 2,138,654
Pittsburgh 54,542,098 1,947,932
Montreal 51,949,000 1,998,038
Toronto 51,279,000 1,899,222
Chicago White Sox 51,010,000 1,961,923
Oakland 50,360,833 1,936,955
Detroit 49,163,000 1,890,885
Cleveland 48,834,833 1,575,317
Florida 48,368,298 1,727,439
San Diego 45,430,000 1,514,333
Milwaukee 40,627,000 1,400,931
Kansas City 40,518,000 1,558,385
Tampa Bay 19,630,000 785,200

Look how far down that list Florida is.

2003 MLB Team Payroll
Team Payroll Average
1. N.Y. Yankees $149,710,995 $5,346,821
Yeah, yeah, we all know about the Yankees.

2. New York Mets 116,868,613 4,029,952
#2 on the list, they must be pretty good, right? Oh, wait! They SUCK!

5. Texas 104,526,470 3,484,216
The second horrible team in the top five...

10. Chicago Cubs 80,743,333 2,883,690
Five of the top ten didn't make the playoffs...

18. Cincinnati 56,979,777 2,034,992
NONE of the next eight made the playoff! Oh no! We have way too much iniquity in baseball!

19. Minnesota 55,605,000 2,138,654
Nineteenth on the list, made the postseason for the second straight year.

22. Toronto 51,279,000 1,899,222
#22, hung in there right till the end, will be a VERY good team over the next few years.

24. Oakland 50,360,833 1,936,955
In the bottom third in payroll, yet posteason quality for FOUR straight years.

27. Florida 48,368,298 1,727,439
IN THE FREAKING WORLD SERIES. Oh, I must be mistaken -- they can't be in the Series, because low-payroll teams can't compete. Sorry, I forgot about that Gospel truth.

29. Milwaukee 40,627,000 1,400,931
BeelzeBud's team. Need I say more?

30. Kansas City 40,518,000 1,558,385
Almost made the postseason. Second-to-last in payroll.

Looks like a pretty good distribution of the wealth to me.

Money doesn't necessarily guarantee a team will be good, but it's nigh well impossible to be good without it.

'Nuff said.

How are they doing? Oh yeah, they're in the World Series!

The main thing driving the Yankees success is more money. NO team can afford to keep up with them year after year. Some teams can keep up for 2-3 years, but then they end up cutting back payroll. The Yankees perennial money advantage is what ruins the competitiveness of MLB and is what is driving away fans in small-mid market areas.

The other thing that sets the Yankees apart is competent, not great management. They avoid making poor investments and save their big money for only top quality players, unlike Baltimore, Texas, Los Angeles, and a few others.

This combination of overwhelming money and competent management allows them to keep the talent that they develop (something that teams like Minnesota, Kansas City, Oakland, and Montreal can't do), and sign additional top quality players whenever they need to, something that other mid-above average market teams can't do (St. Louis, Atlanta (in recent years), Boston, San Francisco).

Full disclosure: I despise the Yankees. My loathing comes from somewhere visceral, somewhere primal. It's not the kind of hatred that makes sense, it's not like a hatred of injustice or Ann Coulter or anything like that... but it's real.

Nonetheless, I agree 100% with George Steinbrenner. Baseball should not have a salary cap.

Why? Because it's NOT all about money:

Exhibit A) The 2002 World Series champion Anaheim Angels. Before winning, they were called a "small market" team that didn't have a chance. This is bullshit. Half of the LA metro area is NOT a small market. Prior to '02, they were a small-REVENUE team, because the product was crap.

Exhibit B) The Oakland Athletics. Four straight playoff appearances with one of the lowest payrolls in baseball. It's not always how much money you have, but how wisely you spend it.

Exhibits C, D, and E) The Dodgers, Mets, and Orioles. These three teams have spent an unholy amount of money over the past several years, and they have bupkis to show for it. Again, it's not always how much money you have, but how wisely you spend it. And remember, the Yankees were shitty in the '80s; and they outspent everybody then, too.

George Steinbrenner wants to win. It's the owners who DON'T want to win who are the problem. Carl Pohlad in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Carl Lindner in Cincinnati (full disclosure: I'm a Reds fan). Allan H. "BeelzeBud" Selig in Milwaukee (full disclosure: I now live in Brewers country).

Just because I hate the Yankees doesn't mean I begrudge them the opportunity to win. Carl Lindner could buy Steinbrenner, but he doesn't want to invest in his team. Big Stein put millions of his own dollars into the Yankees in the '80s, before all those lucrative media deals; and THAT gets my respect (if not my affection).

Don't believe Selig's lies. The salary cap has (IMHO) ruined the NBA, and caused considerable havoc in the NFL and NHL. I like football and hockey well enough, but I LOVE baseball -- and I don't want to see it going down that same path.

The Angels had their one year, but immediately sunk back into mediocrity. A team can win the Series if a number of players have a good year together, but if a significant number of them have bad years, the team will stink. In contrast, many Yankee hitters had mediocre years this year, yet the team still hit very well. Overall talent means others can pick up the slack.

Having money is certainly not a guarantee of being good. It's fairly certain, however, that without it, your team will be bad. Of course, there are exceptions, but the general trend is that teams that spend tend to outplay those that do not or cannot. Coaching can help make a poor team better or a rich team worse, but without a good initial outlay of cash, there's little hope. There is a huge disparity between the baseball haves-and-have-nots, one that prevents the have-nots from maintaining long term success.


There's another aspect you don't mention: what a lack of a salary cap does to the price of attending games. Attending baseball games is becoming as expensive as attending NBA or NFL games, leagues with much shorter seasons. When players and owners are allowed to pursue this ridiculous, unfettered path of overpaying free agents, the buck gets passed on to the consumer.

and I agree that it is EASIER to win with money than without; but it takes a lot more than money. The real reason for this Yankees dynasty is the brilliance of GM Brian Cashman.

The real benefit the Yankees have thanks to their cash flow is the ability to swallow their mistakes. Drew Henson would be better off playing football? No biggie, we'll just trade for Aaron Boone. If Milwaukee makes a boneheaded move (like signing Jeffrey Hammonds a few years back), they're saddled with that albatross for quite a while.

The only real argument I have with your post is the last paragraph (that's why I didn't mention it). The affect of player salaries on ticket prices is negligible. No, ticket prices are just another way for the owners to screw somebody for a buck.

I'm not saying the MLBPA is a bunch of saints. I'm not saying they're always right, there's plenty of blame to go around (as Don Howland of the Bassholes sang during the '94 strike, "the owners and the players won't ever get to heaven; ooooh, camel through a needle-hole"). Nonetheless, when push comes to shove, I'm sticking with union labor.

What was it, 3-4 years ago, that football eclipsed baseball as America's favorite sport? If anything, the salary cap / revenue sharing arrangement of the NFL has allowed far more teams to be competitive. Fans of nearly every team (sorry, Bengals) have legitimate reason to believe this could be their year. Not so in baseball.

And if the salary cap has caused "havoc" in the NFL, and its non-existence in baseball has kept it going, why have there been recent players strikes in MLB but not in the NFL??? Eh, you friend of labor?

Because the league effectively broke the union last time.

And the fact that there HAVE been strikes in baseball means management is treating labor just fine?

The NFL Players Association exists pretty much in name only. It has no real power in negotiations with the NFL, thus, NFL owners have no compelling reason to negotiate in good faith.

MLB owners treat their players like crap, but at least the MLBPA has enough backbone to stand up to their extortion.

I'm not trying to flame anyone (except baseball owners), I'm just trying to make the point that just because somebody is a millionaire doesn't mean he or she doesn't have to work for that money, and it doesn't mean they deserve to be treated like shit by their employers.

Does MLB have that? I honestly don't know.

The labor marketplace in the NFL is a lot more competitive than in MLB. Each team works under the same cap. Each team must choose which players it wants to tie up cap space with, and which will have to be let go. Other teams can then compete for that talent, via free agency, generally resulting in higher contracts for the players. Players have a huge bargaining advantage when there's generally always another team willing (and able) to pay for their services.

And you're telling me this is a bad thing?

and it looks better on the tube. How many football fans, actually go to the games?

Football isn't popular BECAUSE of TV contracts. Those TV contracts are huge BECAUSE football is popular. FOX, CBS, etc. in fact usually take a hit on their NFL broadcasting contracts because there are so many viewers, they can promote their other shows and whatnot.

I think the only teams that don't sell out their home games are the Cardinals and the Bengals. How many teams in baseball don't sell out their home games?

Because if we use that argument, the Expos outsold the Raiders by 400,000 seats.

Selling out 81 games with a capcity of 35-60 thousand seats per game that takes place EVERY day of the week is a hell of a lot harder than selling out 8 games of 60-80 thousand seats that take place on a fan friendly sunday afternoon.

Obviously not as many people will get to see football games over the course of the season, because each team has only 8 home games! (Versus 80+? in MLB)

Your question was just how many football fans go to the games. The answer, obviously, is as many as the stadiums will fit. Football teams generally have no problem selling out their seats.

It was your point, don't blame me for the silliness of comparing fan attendance between the sports.

Every player on my list from the original post is a player that the Yankees developed. EVEN IF YOU HAD A HARD SALARY CAP, THE YANKEES WOULD STILL DOMINATE BASEBALL. LOOK AT THE TALENT ON THE LIST!!!!

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT MONEY.

Also, the Yanks won far more championships during the non-free agency era then they have during this free agency era.

The Yankees won in olden times because they had something many other teams didn't have..a developed farm system. If you played minor league ball in many areas, chances are the Yankees had the first crack at you. The Yankees also aggressively bought up left-handed power hitters so that they could maximize the benefits of Yankee Stadium's short right fence. Even now, it's no accident that the Yankees ended up with Jason Giambi over Manny Ramirez. The Yankees have always had advantages: they just change depending on the era.

I disagree with what nearly everybody else has said.

Those who propose a hard cap (at least one without a floor) want to (I'm going to caps lock this to make my point as clear as possible):

THEY WANT OWNERSHIP TO SCREW LABOR OUT OF THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE PROFITS!

Folks around here don't seem to get that the Major League Baseball Players' Association has the same goals that every other union has: to give those who actually do all the WORK a piece of the pie.

Anyone out there who thinks they want a salary cap; I can only ask you, in the words of the old union song: "which side are you on?"

a great movie about the Chicago White Sox scandal. Charlie Comiskey was a cheap bastard, and most of the owners at that time were just like him. He cheated his players out of their money.

Baseball owners are notoriously cheap, anti-labor, old industrialists. NY Yankee owners just have a different mindset. They want to win.

Now, now. I agree that Big Stein wants to win, and is willing to spend to make that happen. But come on, are you saying there's never been labor trouble in his shipyards? Actually, that's a question, I really don't know. I admire Steinbrenner for his thirst for victory Champagne, but don't think for a second that he wouldn't cheat his players if given half a chance.