Baseball salary cap...Yes or No

[miked]

Was just wondering. Watching the same teams win every year (with a few randoms thrown in there) does anyone think baseball would benefit from a salary cap? Some baseball purists I speak to dislike the football cap and the fact that there seems to be cyclical performance from many teams.

Would baseball benefit in terms of competitive balance and would that be something you'd want to see?

[MrIllini]

I think a better step in the right direction would be forcing teams to spend the revenue sharing dollars they get each season from the Yank-mes and Red Sox instead of taking it and running with a huge profit, regardless of how bad their own team is

[rkmsuf]

more cowbell is the answer

[Samdari]

Was just wondering. Watching the same teams win every year (with a few randoms thrown in there) does anyone think baseball would benefit from a salary cap? Some baseball purists I speak to dislike the football cap and the fact that there seems to be cyclical performance from many teams.

Would baseball benefit in terms of competitive balance and would that be something you'd want to see?

I think it depends on revenue sharing. A cap is nice, but if you set the cap at 50% of the average payroll, there are quite a few teams who would still be unable to compete because their revenues would not allow them to have a payroll anywhere near the cap. I am not saying that a cap is not important to achieving competitive balance in MLB, but I think it has to go hand in hand with real revenue sharing and a minimum cap.

Whether or not you want a cap for baseball depends on whether or not you think parity is best for a league, or having dominant teams is best. Some people think that every game being competitive, and every team having hope at the beginning of each season is good for a league, others think that having great, dominant teams make the product more compelling to watch. In the last 5 years I have gone from being rabid about every sport to even more rabid about the NFL (and SU basketball) and much less so about every other sport, so I tend to lean towards the idea that the NFL does everything right.

[WSUCougar]

Good post, Samdari. I concur.

[WSUCougar]

dola

Except about the SU basketball part...;)

[Hammer755]

Samdari's right on. You can't just implement a cap for the sake of having a salary cap. It has to go hand-in-hand with a well-implemented revenue sharing pland and a salary minimum to ensure that the owners are actually spending their surpluses on the team.

[MrIllini]

after Anaheim and Florida just won the last two WS, I wouldn't expect to see a cap anytime soon

[Hammer755]

Dola

The best solution I've ever read for solving baseball's financial problems came from Bob Costas in his book Fair Ball.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nope, it's not something I'd want to see in the least.

[Hammer755]

Double Dola

Here's a synopsis (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/5312/39270) of some of Costas' key points from the book.

- Revenue Sharing
- Salary Cap & Salary Floor
- Realignment
- Eliminate the Wild-Card & DH
- Expand All-Star Rosters
- Institute an International Draft
- Enforce a Consistent Strike Zone
- Introduce Instant Replay
- Hire More Front-Office Minorities
- Keep Pete Rose Out of Baseball

[miked]

I am firmly in favor of a salary floor. Seeing the Reds sell players last year hurt, especially since they were in a new park and most likely seeing a revenue boost (I don't think they actually paid for the park either).

What would eliminating the Wild-Card do except give more teams reason to sell off players earlier?

I was just watching Sportscenter this morning and watching them talk about the Pirates dealing Benson (it comes up every year) and I figure by opening day, at least half the teams already have little hope and was wondering what the best way to make the league more competitive.

[Honolulu Blue]

I think revenue sharing and a salary floor would both be more effective than a salary cap. I personally don't mind dominant teams in any sport.

[vtbub]

Salary floor.

I dislike parity. You know what it takes to develop and win and frankly most teams don't give a shit.

[Ksyrup]

I certainly wouldn't support a cap, but I don't think I'd even support a floor, unless the floor was so low that it would essentially not serve its intended purpose. Why penalize a team for putting together a solid group of young players? Look at this list:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD align=left>28. Cleveland (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=cle)</TD><TD align=right>34,569,300</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#efefe7><TD align=left>29. Tampa Bay (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=tam)</TD><TD align=right>28,706,667</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD align=left>30. Milwaukee (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=mil)</TD><TD align=right>27,518,500</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


All 3 teams are doing well this year, with Cleveland having a reasonable shot at the post-season. And even if none of these teams sniff the post-season, it looks like they'll all do far better than anyone would have anticipated. Why force them to take on a bloated salary just to meet an artificial floor? They'd do better to get some low-priced rookies playing time.

Some of the mid-range player's agents would love a floor. Fred McGriff on a minor league contract? Nope, TB needs to meet the $30M payroll floor, so sign him to a $3M contract.

Would baseball really be served by such a rule? You'd essentially create a bunch of Scott Borases who specialize in representing the marginally-talented, aging veterans in the game.

[Ksyrup]

Dola. Even further up the list...


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#efefe7><TD align=left>25. Cincinnati (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=cin)</TD><TD align=right>42,722,858</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD align=left>26. Florida (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=fla)</TD><TD align=right>42,118,042</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#efefe7><TD align=left>27. Pittsburgh (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=pit)</TD><TD align=right>40,227,929</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Samdari]

I don't agree with Costas that realignment and eliminating the WC are good ideas.

While I disagree with many of the attempts to gain more fans (DH & interleague being eggregious examples) I think this one has worked out well. The extra playoff round brings in quite a bit of revenue, but perhaps more importantly keeps more teams in in down the stretch without completely watering down the postseason. I would imagine that this brings in more fans to more parks in September than the postseason games combined (although that would be impossible to quantify).

[John Galt]

more cowbell is the answer

I agree.

[Ksyrup]

Double Dola

Here's a synopsis (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/5312/39270) of some of Costas' key points from the book.

- Revenue Sharing
- Salary Cap & Salary Floor
- Realignment
- Eliminate the Wild-Card & DH
- Expand All-Star Rosters
- Institute an International Draft
- Enforce a Consistent Strike Zone
- Introduce Instant Replay
- Hire More Front-Office Minorities
- Keep Pete Rose Out of Baseball
I'm for revenue sharing, instituting an international draft, instant replay, more minorities (although how you would do that is the question), and keeping Rose out of baseball.

I'm against the salary cap and floor, eliminating the wild card, and expanding the all-star rosters any further than they already are.

In a perfect world, I would be for eliminating the DH and geographic realignment, but neither of those will ever happen.

[rkmsuf]

barry bonds did the juice...discuss.

[Hammer755]

The All-Star roster sizes were expanded from 28 to 30 to 32, where they now stand. I think that's plenty as well.

As for the Wild-Card, I guess it has been pretty good for the game, even though I thoroughly abhor it. Baseball was one of the few sports where you had to finish in first place to compete in the playoffs. Something just doesn't sit right with me for a team like Florida to have 2 World Series titles and 0 division titles in the franchise's history.

And I'm right with you Ksyrup that I would love to see the DH gone and geographical realignment, but neither of those are probably practical solutions.

[Ksyrup]

I believe that Costas' book was published in 2001. The All-Star roster sizes were expanded from 28 to 30 to 32, where they now stand. I think that's plenty as well.

As for the Wild-Card, that is one thing that I guess has been pretty good for the game, even though I thoroughly abhor it. Baseball was one of the few sports where you had to finish in first place to compete in the playoffs. Something just doesn't sit right with me for a team like Florida to have 2 World Series titles and 0 division titles in the franchise's history.
I also liked baseball's uniqueness in that regard, but the combination of a perceived lack of ability for mid-to-lower tier teams to compete, the length of the season (which I would support shortening back to 154 or something between 148 and 160, btw), and the sheer number of teams NOT making the post-season, made this a necessity in terms of public relations. I wouldn't even be opposed to the top 2 wild card teams having a 2-out-of-3 playoff for the wild card spot, just as long as they don't go the way of hockey and basketball.

[QuikSand]

I think cowbell might just be the right answer here.

[Samdari]

I'm for revenue sharing.... against the salary... floor

Well, given that Milwaukee (for example) took the money from the very limited revenue sharing that baseball implemented, and used it to pay of personal debt of Bud Selig's rather than spend it on players, I think some mechanism needs to be in place to ensure that the lower revenue teams do use the money to achieve competitive balance.

[nfg22]

I certainly wouldn't support a cap, but I don't think I'd even support a floor, unless the floor was so low that it would essentially not serve its intended purpose. Why penalize a team for putting together a solid group of young players? Look at this list:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD align=left>28. Cleveland (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=cle)</TD><TD align=right>34,569,300</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#efefe7><TD align=left>29. Tampa Bay (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=tam)</TD><TD align=right>28,706,667</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD align=left>30. Milwaukee (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=mil)</TD><TD align=right>27,518,500</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


All 3 teams are doing well this year, with Cleveland having a reasonable shot at the post-season. And even if none of these teams sniff the post-season, it looks like they'll all do far better than anyone would have anticipated. Why force them to take on a bloated salary just to meet an artificial floor? They'd do better to get some low-priced rookies playing time.

Some of the mid-range player's agents would love a floor. Fred McGriff on a minor league contract? Nope, TB needs to meet the $30M payroll floor, so sign him to a $3M contract.

Would baseball really be served by such a rule? You'd essentially create a bunch of Scott Borases who specialize in representing the marginally-talented, aging veterans in the game.


Cleveland has no chance sir...Twins have it locked up thanks:P

[GrantDawg]

and Chris says...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~cae4/images/cowbell.jpg

[Ksyrup]

Well, given that Milwaukee (for example) took the money from the very limited revenue sharing that baseball implemented, and used it to pay of personal debt of Bud Selig's rather than spend it on players, I think some mechanism needs to be in place to ensure that the lower revenue teams do use the money to achieve competitive balance.
I agree, although it's a difficult thing to police. It's not like you can trace it that cleanly. But there should be some strict categories for which that money can be spent, like scouting, farm system, players (obviously).

Things like teams that own or are under common ownership of TV networks de-valuing those contracts in order to appear less profitable is a different issue, but one that concerns me just as much as the revenue sharing, but one that not many people focus on.

[miked]

Why get rid of the DH? I hate seeing some guy come up there every 9 batters who just blindly waves at 3 pitches because he hasn't taken BP in 5 years. It's good for pitchers' stats, but stupid to watch. Occasionally a Mike Hampton or Doc Gooden comes along who can swing better than some position players, but I'd say 90% of the pitchers from the looks of it could care less if they batted.

[tategter]

Why get rid of the DH? I hate seeing some guy come up there every 9 batters who just blindly waves at 3 pitches because he hasn't taken BP in 5 years. It's good for pitchers' stats, but stupid to watch. Occasionally a Mike Hampton or Doc Gooden comes along who can swing better than some position players, but I'd say 90% of the pitchers from the looks of it could care less if they batted.

It's called strategy. Having a dead bat in the lineup creates situations where the manager actually has to manage, which creates excitement, suspense, and controversy. All things which add flavor to the game. IMHO The NL is a much more exciting league purely because of this fact.

[Franklinnoble]

I can see "More Cowbell" replacing "I have a Trout in my rectum" in a lot of polls from now on...

[Radii]

I absolutely loved costas' book. One of my favorite journalists and his book brought up a lot of well thought out points.

I buy the arguments from elsehwere though that baseball is competitive enough as it is without a cap, but, if we removed the wild card, that might change.

I think in my ideal world, there WOULD be a cap and a floor and signifigant revenue sharing. There would also be NO WILD CARD so that the regular season carried more meaning. Hey, I love that hte Cubs made the wild card last year and had the pitching rotation to almost get to the world series, but, I love the winner take all divisional contests even more.

I hate the DH, and have hated the AL my entire life, in part b/c of the DH(and in part, I am sure, due to geography and WGN and TBS). The strategy involved with having the pitcher hit is awesome.


While we're at it, the All-Star game is an exhibition. Lets make this year the last time it counts for anything.

Just because you make the all-star game, you don't have a god given right to play. Get the guys the fans voted out there for a few innings, put in the true deserving players and play a real baseball game. Barry Bonds should be in the game in the 9th inning, not taken out in the 3rd.

I am for instant replay but its uses must be limited in some fashion.

[John Galt]

I can see "More Cowbell" replacing "I have a Trout in my rectum" in a lot of polls from now on...

Don't Fear the Reaper

[Cuckoo]

Hey, I love that hte Cubs made the wild card last year and had the pitching rotation to almost get to the world series, but, I love the winner take all divisional contests even more.

Actually, the Cubs won the NL Central by one game over the Astros. Florida was the NL Wildcard team last year.

[LloydLungs]

Hey, I love that hte Cubs made the wild card last year and had the pitching rotation to almost get to the world series, but, I love the winner take all divisional contests even more.

FYI, the Cubs won the Central last year, Cuckoo beat me to it...

I hate the wild card myself, but I recognize that out of 30 teams, more than 4 need to make postseason. I think 8 is a good number, I just wish we could realign somehow to four divisions per league and then just take all the division champs.

[Ksyrup]

Why get rid of the DH? I hate seeing some guy come up there every 9 batters who just blindly waves at 3 pitches because he hasn't taken BP in 5 years. It's good for pitchers' stats, but stupid to watch. Occasionally a Mike Hampton or Doc Gooden comes along who can swing better than some position players, but I'd say 90% of the pitchers from the looks of it could care less if they batted.
If pitchers had to hit, they would take BP more than once every 5 years. And they would learn to hit *better* in the minors, where the DH would be abolished as well. Most pitchers excelled at both pitching and hitting in high school, so when they get to the pros, they're really just losing what they used to know. Not that they would be on the level of the best hitters in the leage, but after 5-10 years of the system working in this way, I think the vast majority of them would be serviceable hitters.

Then you'd have strategy, and a guy who would, in most cases, do something other than just waive at 3 pitches.

[Ksyrup]

I just wish we could realign somehow to four divisions per league and then just take all the division champs.
That would be great, but it's too tied to geographic realignment to ever happen. If they were to seriously consider something that drastic, they might as well go all the way, and they don't have the guts to completely screw with history in order to get it done.

[miked]

If pitchers had to hit, they would take BP more than once every 5 years. And they would learn to hit *better* in the minors, where the DH would be abolished as well. Most pitchers excelled at both pitching and hitting in high school, so when they get to the pros, they're really just losing what they used to know. Not that they would be on the level of the best hitters in the leage, but after 5-10 years of the system working in this way, I think the vast majority of them would be serviceable hitters.

Then you'd have strategy, and a guy who would, in most cases, do something other than just waive at 3 pitches.

They do have to hit. And they joke about never taking BP and sucking. I don't understand the "major" strategy involved. The options are pretty standard. There is no more strategy involved than in bullpen use.

[Cuckoo]

I don't understand the "major" strategy involved. The options are pretty standard. There is no more strategy involved than in bullpen use.

Wow Mike, you must watch a lot of AL games if you don't see the major strategies. :p

[miked]

Example of strategy. Runner on first, pitcher up. Two choices...let him try and bunt over (you'd be surprised how many pitchers can't do this considering it's their main purpose) or let him swing and miss at three pitches. If he fails to get the runner over, it's nothing that wouldn't have happened anyway. I know there is strategy leading up to the pitcher AB, like having a runners steal and such, and the amazing intellect needed for the double-switch...but really.

I liken it to putting a guy on crutches on the football field.

:piss: NL

:p

[Hammer755]

Example of strategy. Runner on first, pitcher up. Two choices...let him try and bunt over (you'd be surprised how many pitchers can't do this considering it's their main purpose) or let him swing and miss at three pitches. If he fails to get the runner over, it's nothing that wouldn't have happened anyway. I know there is strategy leading up to the pitcher AB, like having a runners steal and such, and the amazing intellect needed for the double-switch...but really.

I liken it to putting a guy on crutches on the football field.

:piss: NL

:p
Or if it's the eighth inning of a tie game and there are 2 out and your pitcher has pitched a spectacular game, and you have to decide whether to pinch-hit or not. Then you have to anticipate that the opposing manager will respond to your pinch-hitting with your best lefty hitter off the bench with his sidearming southpaw, forcing you to counter with another pinch-hitter, thereby in the process burning your starting pitcher and your best bat off the bench.

Yeah, no decision-making intellect needed there.

[Cuckoo]

Well said, Hammer. And I would add that that scenario would only be the tip of the iceberg in the way of the strategy difference between the AL and the NL. One can downplay the significance of the double-switch because it seems simple, but the strategy involved in double-switches can make profound impacts on games. In my opinion, the strategy difference between the DH and the pitcher hitting is so great that arguing about it is absolutely pointless.

[ISiddiqui]

I agree with removing the DH! Bring some strategy back in the game with whether to go for the lead or keep the pitcher in. NL baseball is vastly superior because of that fact. Gotta think about that spot.

I'd also want to remove the Wild Card. In order win the WS, you gotta win your division. Or, on the contrary, make the WC have to play ALL their games on the road. Some massive crutch for not winning the division. Baseball was about regular season rather than playoffs, that's why it was about division winners. It should stay that way.

[Franklinnoble]

Yeah, I read "Moneyball" and I'd love to follow the A's a little more (since they're the closest team to me now anyway), but I just can't get into following an AL team because I despise the DH rule so much.

Ah, well. I can stick with my Diamondbacks. They're only, what, 16 games out of first now?

[Scarecrow]

Crow's 5¢ Opinion:

From Bob Costas
- Revenue Sharing
- Salary Cap & Salary Floor
- Realignment
- Eliminate the Wild-Card & DH
- Institute an International Draft
- Enforce a Consistent Strike Zone
- Introduce Instant Replay

Plus,
- Not only a salary cap for the team, but a salary cap on a player (the way the NBA had planned). Best way would be to say each year that no player can make more than x% of the team salary cap.

- A Franchise Tag (exactly the way the NFL does it) 1 year contract at ave of top 5 at that position. Problem would arise in saying player x is a MR although he started 20 games.

- Trading of draft picks. Why can they not do this now?