Sports Daily: Yanks land Tanaka, Revisiting the Idea of a Salary Cap

[dingleberryfinn]

Quote: Originally Posted by HozAndMoose

... And there needs to be a set amount you have to spend. There should be no reason all teams cant afford 100 million minimum.

I'm 100% capitalist but I'd love to see a 100 million dollar minimum.

[Perfect Zero]

Money wins Championships? I don't own a 2002 Texas Rangers World Champion pennant. I guess they sold out...

I wouldn't mind a price floor, but if owners want to go out of their way to spend money, it should be their right.

[DieHardYankee26]

I think it's crazy. It's like DrJones said, the teams have the money, their owners just don't want to spend it. Yankees fans shouldn't be penalized for having owners who are willing to put their entire worth behind the team if need be. I think a floor makes much more sense. Owners should be able to spend as much money as they want to put a good team on the field, and they should also be held to a certain standard payroll minimum so they can't just rake in the profits.

[BatsareBugs]

Let them spend as much as they want. It makes those teams look bad for missing the playoffs or not winning the World Series.

Implementing a salary cap will not prevent the Jeff Moorad's of the world from screwing over other teams by holding the fan base accountable for how high said teams' payroll will be.

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by pietasterp

The Yankees have done that (steal young talent from other teams) throughout the better part of the last 2 decades, and they did win multiple series over that time frame as a result.

Who are you referring to here? Tino and Knoblauch? I hate the Yankees as much as anyone else, but their 1996-2000 titles weren't "bought" IMO. Most of the Yankees FA acquisitions have been older players whose gigantic contracts have bitten the Yanks in the ***.

[Sportsforever]

Baseball does not need a salary cap, it needs a salary floor. Now, whether that is a hard number or a certain % of revenue I don't know, but teams should be required to spend money ON THEIR TEAM.

It is criminal IMO that teams like the Pirates, Marlins, Rays, etc make money and pocket it (especially revenue sharing money). Don't be mad at the Yankees for spending their money…be mad at your team for not spending theirs.

[Majingir]

It doesn't really need a hard cap, but at least have a bigger penalty for exceeding the luxury tax. The current penalty is too light. It's just a percentage that you're over by. I believe NBA is $1+ penalty for every dollar you're over. MLB should be same thing. Every dollar you're over the luxury tax, you pay something like $1.10(so a team 10M over would pay 11M in tax. Instead of the current penalty where 10M over would only be anywhere from 1.5M-5M in tax)

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

Who are you referring to here? Tino and Knoblauch? I hate the Yankees as much as anyone else, but their 1996-2000 titles weren't "bought" IMO. Most of the Yankees FA acquisitions have been older players whose gigantic contracts have bitten the Yanks in the ***.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your larger point, but while I agree the early part of the dynasty years (i.e. '96-2000) were not necessarily acquired, the next 10 years of their history were largely characterized by picking off a lot of high profile talent from other teams at or near the peaks of their careers (and inflating the FA market in the process); Giambi, Clemens, A-Rod, Curtis Granderson, Teixeira, Sabathia....

Now they didn't all lead directly to titles, but it did lead to consistent post-season appearances. And if you subscribe to the theory that once you get in the post-season, the small sample sizes allow for chance to play a greater role (i.e. making it to the post season is skill, winning it all requires luck as well), the real measure of the result of big spending is post-season appearances, which the Yankees did pretty much every year of the 2000's.

I'm not saying baseball does or doesn't "need" a cap - I frankly don't care one way or the other. But if I were the czar of baseball or something, and I cared about cultivating as many of the fanbases as possible (which theoretically leads to a healthier overall interest in the game), I would strongly consider it. The issue is of course no one really cares or has that as their primary goal (at least, no one involved in baseball does). Since the goal is to maximize the value of the franchises, much like a CEO's job is to maximize shareholder value, the current system seems to be working just fine. If baseball teams were publicly traded entities and I had an equity stake in one or more franchises (or an MLB Index!), I would certainly be pleased with the last several decades. Although I would be shorting the living sh*t out of Tampa...