Who here thinks there should be a salary cap in baseball?

.

and a steep luxery tax.

teams work to raise local revenue. They take those risks individually. Sharing all local revenue removes that incentive. NFL teams don't share local revenue. They share national revenue.

They treat baseball as a single business for anti-trust purposes, but each individual team as franchises for revenue purposes, and the two seem to be at odds with each other.

Of course Milwaukee was competitive, Toronto won a couple of World Series, and the Cubs just can't seem to pull it out, despite being in a big market...

I'll be damned if the people putting their bodies out there should make less.

There are people raking in huge profits from these games and players. That's why they OFFER the money.

Players are entitled to make the best deal they can.

Watch Minor League games. I find them much more entertaining, and a hell of a lot more affordable. Local stadiums are packed with families, who can afford to bring EVERYONE, the kids often have a good chance to meet and talk with the players, every seat in the stadium is great and close enough to the action to worry about line drives and flung bats.

Major League, on the other hand, is far, FAR more expensive, 80% of the seats make you wish you brought binoculars, the kids have to fight throngs to get a 5 second autograph from one of the few players who isn't too much of a primo-donna to acknowledge the fans, and the outcome of the plays is pretty much set in stone the moment the ball leaves the bat.

Honestly, I think Major League ball only survives by how mesmerized fans are by "the Big Show." Big Deal. Minor League Baseball will remind you why this is Americas national sport.

Give the current owners stock in the new company, and sell share to the public.

One benefit: Instead of being drafted by teams, players would be drafted by the league and assigned to a team. Teams would stay together and build chemistry and fan loyalty. Players would all be payed a base salary, with bonuses based on statistics and post-season appearances.

Competitive balance is not a problem in baseball. The Florida Marlins have won two world series. The Twins have been in the playoffs 3 straight years. The Oakland A's are always on the cusp of postseason.

There already is a lot of revenue sharing. Read this article for the truth.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/cry-me-a-river-build-a-bridge-and-get-over-it

we haven't won since 2000. Regardless. Read the article I linked. Its quite instructive. And competitive balance is not an issue in baseball.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/cry-me-a-river-build-a-bridge-and-get-over-it

I'm not fooled.

Oakland has been competitive for half a decade. The Twins have made postseason 3 straight years. Florida was competitive last year, they didn't win the division but were in the race and they'll be very good this year.

any team in the postseason can compete. The NBA has a salary cap. Its done little for competitive balance.

won in 2003, beating the yankees. so much for the theory that a small market team cant beat a big market team.

it really isnt about small vs big market in baseball. with all the revenue sharing and luxury tax that the yankees pay (along with the red sox and the dodgers)

it really IS about competant vs incompetant owners. greed is also a major factor. baseball, along with hockey overexpanded. but the owners didnt care when then got all that franchise fee money.

david

we haven't won since 2000. Regardless. Read the article I linked. Its quite instructive. And competitive balance is not an issue in baseball.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/cry-me-a-river-build-a-bridge-and-get-over-it

The NFL product is much more mediocre than it was in the 70s and 80s. There were truly great teams back then. The product has been watered down by the hard cap.

Also, the NFL exists on a national tv contract. Baseball mainly on local revenue.

The Pirates will never.

they don't even try to win. They have pocketed the revenue sharing money and revenue from the stadium. They haven't even tried to invest in their team.

are you talking Bonds and Bonilla 15 years ago. The fans didn't even sell out playoff games for that team.

I don't think they sold out and if they did they struggled to do so. And they had meager attendance for such a great team. They haven't had a good team since then. They haven't even tried to have a good team. The owner has just pocketed the revenue sharing money from the latest CBA and has done nothing to invest in his team.

I remember vividly. I tried to get tickets and couldn't.

why would the media do that?

Jack Buck and Tim McCarver especially.

some teams make more money because they invest in their teams. Why should all of that money be shared.

No guaranteed money, only a one-time bonus. A superstar gets hurt, oops, sorry, you're gonna get cut. Thanks for the memories.

Whereas in baseball and hoops, contacts are guaranteed down to the last cent.

corporate welfare. That's what a lot of these revenue schemes amount to. I don't think its freeper like to rail against corporate welfare.

There is some revenue sharing, but not enough to maintain a true balance over time. That, my friend, is the truth. Please look beyond the end of your greedy, Yankee-fan nose.

there is much revenue sharing and a hefty luxery tax. 40 percent this year for the Yankees. There is true balance. Oakland has been right there every year, as has Minnesota. Over half the teams had a chance at postseason play last year. Competitive balance has never been better and that is a fact.

and on and on. And it's funny that you seem to forget that the teams you mention haven't made it to the Series, nor that they rarely make it out of the divisional round.

There is no parity, and competitive balance was far better during the '70s, '80s and early '90s, so please don't make a claim that doesn't actually have any validity. Thank you very much.

Oh, and please grow some skin. I don't even mean thick skin, just some skin. Sheesh. If that bothers you, I can't imagine that you ever go to a game.

was in it until the final week last year as was Texas. Milwaukee doesn't even try to compete despite a spanking new stadium at taxpayer expense. KC has one of the richest owners in the league and pockets all the revenue sharing dollars.

Competitive balance is very good right now. Any team run well has a good chance to compete. Once you are in the playoffs, you have a shot. The last three champions are wild card teams. Two of them were low to middle of the pack payroll teams. The facts just aren't on your side.

Pick up a baseball prospectus sometime. You just may learn something.

I'm actually a bit surprised there aren't more here.

I'd be for a better revenue sharing system, but that's really the only change I can think of.

a system that actually encourages owners to invest in their teams instead of pocketing extra money. BP's website acually wrote such a proposal at one point.

San Diego loaded up for a one year bash with their new stadium. They're dead in the water again this year. And Texas made a run of sorts for the first time in how many years? And your basis for Milwaukee is that the team doesn't try, and Kansas City is bilking the fans? Nevermind all the teams that I didn't list that have no real chance at the title, and that includes Minnesota. Making the playoffs, when you've got eight teams going, doesn't mean much in terms of having a realistic chance at the title.

When will you consider reality?

I read the prospectus, and a lot closer and/or more honestly than you do. In other words, I don't select only those bits and pieces of information that suit my argument. And it's not like you've actually offered an argument based on the actual, full account of information there. Nevermind, that it is not the be-all, end-all in regard to reality.

Any team might have a chance to compete for one year or so, in terms of actually having a real chance at the title, but that means spending money that the team won't have in the future. The only non-BIG BIG BIG, out of this world salary team to win the Series in the last decade was the second Marlins team. That says everything you need to know about the real state of competitive balance in MLB.

Your spin doesn't work. Why can't you just admit that the system is clearly flawed and needs fixing, even though it would suit your desires as a fan if it remained as is?

When the Angels won, they were a mid market budgeted team.

And they along with the Marlins proved that making the playoffs gives you as good a shot as any to make a run at a title. The short series is a crapshoot. Luck is largely the determining factor. The fact that Oakland has had a chance to win their division 5 straight years and Minnesota has won their's 3 straight years proves that the small market teams can compete.

The Dodgers have had a high payroll for years and last year was their first postseason in a long time. The Mets have been at the top of the National League in payroll and had only two postseasons the last 10 years. The Cubs have one postseason I believe. The mid payroll SF Giants compete just about every year. Mid Market Houston has been in the postseason mix just about every year.

Seattle fell off the face of the earth last year after several seasons at the top of competitiveness. They had the best record ever one year. They were beat by a Yankees team that wasn't as good as them.

The system is no longer flawed. There is a lot of revenue sharing and a massive luxery tax on the top teams. This tax kept the Yankees from signing Beltran, so it worked. More than half the teams have a great chance at postseason. That's more than the NBA can say. Its as much as the NFL can say. The NFL where the Patriots are about to win their 3rd in 4 years. Nothing like that in baseball since the new CBA. And the level of play is better in baseball. The playoffs in baseball have been much more competitive than anything we've seen in football lately. I see no need to bring the mediocrity of the NFL to baseball.

I thought about the Angels after I posted that, and I decided to just go out and enjoy myself rather than waste my time adding them as the second team, in a one-year miracle run that proves nothing whatsoever. And then you come here and hang your hat on that bizarre run as some sort of proof. I'm laughing and rolling all over the floor. Thanks for the kicks and giggles.

The system is still extremely flawed. The Yankees will have a salary three and four times that of other teams. Heck, the "tax" they must pay is more than the salary of one or two teams. It's time for a "duh" moment, my friend. You have tried to spin and spin and spin, hanging your hat on anecdotes that cannot be generalized. The simple truth is that you're wrong, but you desperately don't want to be wrong, because you know that your team will be in the playoffs EVERY year as long as the current system remains in place.

That's really the end of this story. It is for me. It's not worth wasting my time any more.

reasoned argument based on fact. You can choose not to debate. That is your choice.

Some teams shouldn't exist. They have no fan base. Tampa has more Yankees fans than D-Rays fans. Why do they have a team.

Regardless, everything I've posted is based in fact. The luxery tax is working. There is a lot of revenue sharing. Lots of teams are signing players to fairly large contracts. The system is working just fine. There is no real competitive balance problem. This is based on fact, not spin. But that's okay if you don't want to debate. Have a good night.

Too much player movement is also an issue.

where the players are indentured servants to the owners once again.

I don't think so.

Besides, if that's a big worry of yours in regard to pro sports, then it seems like you would be concerned about the NFL, where the union is not nearly as strong as in MLB.

it seems to be a company run union to me.

A salary cap may help competition, but it hurts the quality of the game. Look no further than the NFL for evidence of this -- the best team out there is the eminently mediocre New England Patriots.

What baseball does need is a better revenue sharing procedure, so that teams have incentive to try to put a winner on the field. Now, you've got owners like the guy in Pittsburgh that are actively slamming owners for trying to win games. That's BS (by which I don't mean Bud Selig).

the NFL is incredibly mediocre compared to the 70s and 80s.

They always point out how small market teams stay in the race in baseball, but they never seem to mention that most small market teams gear up for one run for a ring then have a fire sale the next year. The Expos, Padres, Marlins, Pirates, D-Backs, all followed up their best seasons with mass player giveaways.

Small market owners are indeed getting huge checks from owners like Steinbrenner, the Red Sox, and the Angels. Next year, they'll be getting a check from the Mets. Yet, what do they do with the money? They pocket it and tell their fans to blame the Yankees. The Royals didn't even try to sign Beltran. They could've at least made an attempt, but they didn't.

All that a salary cap does is give the owners more money. That's all. It does nothing to improve competitive balance. Did you see the debacle that was the last three weeks of the NFL season? Teams like the Steelers, Colts, and Eagles were playing their second string because of their records.

Every year NFL teams already locked in the playoffs rest their starters, so that hardly is a reflection of competitve balance. It's just the way the NFL is structured that at least the top two playoff seeds are decided 2-3 weeks before the end of the season.


Just look:

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2004

How can you even pretend that there's balance in a sport where one team spends $184 million and another spends $27 million? To claim that the only reason small market teams don't contend is bad ownership is to blatantly ignore the Grand Canyon-sized gap between the haves and have nots.

There should be a salary cap, and a minimal revenue sharing plan. However, i think the OLD NBA salary cap idea was the best. (I think they messed up when they changed that.)

I would suggest that any team has the right to resign any player who was already under a newly expired contract for any amount of money. The salary cap would be the OLD salary plus an escalating percentage of the difference. As an example, let's say a team has a terrific young shortstop who's getting $2 million. He's now a free agent. People are offering him $8 to $10 million. His own team could sign him for $12 million. The cap hit would be only $2 million plus 25% of the new $10 million. So, they would only apply $4.5 million against the cap.

My reasoning is that this helps to sustain teams and keep fans happy by allowing teams to keep their own stars, without having to dump other fan favorites to maintain cap space.

I suppose they could limit the number of players filling this formula to 3 to 5. (A team could afford to keep two good starters, a closer and two star position players on their roster, at a very good salary.)

The NBA had this with the "Bird Exemption". They eliminated it, but they didn't have a sliding multiplier or an overall cap impact formula. I would have preferred they modified this rather than scrapping the whole thing.

This creates a cap on salaries, but doesn't limit player movement, doesn't really supress salaries for players of high performance, and maitains team consistency.

The Professor