• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Baseball needs a salary cap.

DeafPoet

DeafPoet

Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
It's a somewhat controversial issue, but I've read some stuff about the highest paid players in Baseball this week and it's pretty atrocious.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those guys who's complaining about professional sports salaries because they're arbitrarily too high; I don't blame them a bit for trying to get as much money as they can for their services. The issue is that it affects competition.

For evidence, look no further than perennial whipping boys, the Yankees and to a similar degree, the Red Sox. It's great that they have all this money to buy awesome ball players, but in the long run it's bad for the game.

It's the same teams in the playoffs every year because of this and if you look at the stands in some ballparks around the league, it's a vicious cycle for some of them. They can't afford the salaries, so they can't field a competitive team, which drives down attendance and TV contracts which means they can't afford the salaries, etc.

I'll declare my bias now and state that I'm a Jays fan. Admittedly, if you live in Tampa, New York or Boston, the AL East is a pretty awesome place to be. But let's face it, it's stacked. "Cellar dwellers" (or at least 3rd place teams) in the AL East (most years) would be in a competitive position in other divisions.

The cap has made the NFL and especially the NHL far more competitive and interesting in recent years and I don't understand why staunch traditionalists wouldn't want the same for Baseball.
 
Baseball is fine the way it is :cool: Rather than implement a salary cap, how about some of those cheap-ass club owners actually invest in their teams. They cry fowl when their teams are shit but that's because they don't spend the money to get the good players. Once they get the good players their team will start winning. Once the team starts to win, the fans will come and once the fans start to come they will make back their money.

Furthermore, I don't buy the whole salary cap will make things more competitive argument either. Look at whose won world series in the last decade. You have the Marlins, the Diamond Backs, White Sox, and the Cards up there with the big spenders like the Angels, Red Sox and the Yankees. Seems like a fairly diverse group to me. Take into account that the Rays are on fire this year and I flat out don't buy that it's needed
 
I figured I'd hear from you on this one clint g. Given your blatant avatar and all ;)

I'll agree that the Rays somewhat disprove my point since in the last 3 or 4 years they've been consistent contenders. And they're hardly what you'd call a big market team.

And yeah, you have a few lesser-expected teams winning it all in the past decade but really, it's always the same teams that are around in October for the most part.

Are there a few cheap ass owners who have the dough but won't shell out for the talent? Sure. The Cubs come to mind. But wouldn't it be better to take that out of the equation altogether?

If, in any given year, any club COULD win assuming smart decisions by the GM, wouldn't that be better for baseball overall?

Also, I didn't see you deny the improvement in competition in the NFL and NHL, but I didn't see you address it either. I think it's pretty plain that the cap improved things for those leagues.

All the same, thanks for the considered reply, misguided though it may be :devil:
 
The Cubs come to mind. But wouldn't it be better to take that out of the equation altogether?
Click to expand...
I actually think that's one of my favorite aspects of the sport. With baseball, the business side of things goes hand and hand with how well the team does. If the managers screw up, the team is going to be hurting. That's just part of what baseball is. Also, any club can win in a given year. All they need are owners who want to invest in their team. Take a look at my beloved Yankees for instance ;) When the Yankees were owned by CBS they were shit. The owner didn't care. The current owner does however. He is all about winning and does what he needs to do to ensure that happens. Other teams can do this. The other owners are just as wealthy. They just choose not to.

Also, money by no means guarantees a victory. The Red Sox have been about on par with the Yankees in terms of spending yet only in the last decade have they won a World Series. The Mets are another big money team and the last time they won a World Series was in 1986 I believe.

As for why I didn't tackle your NHL and NFL comments, I truly can not stand both football and hockey so I feel as if it's best for me not to comment on either of them ;)
 
clint g said:
I actually think that's one of my favorite aspects of the sport. With baseball, the business side of things goes hand and hand with how well the team does.
Click to expand...

To each their own I guess. That's one of my least favourite aspects of any non-cap sport. I follow hockey pretty closely and the business decisions are all the more interesting because of the limitations. With every team on a level playing field, money-wise, the decisions become everything, not the amount of money you throw at a problem.

Also, money by no means guarantees a victory. The Red Sox have been about on par with the Yankees in terms of spending yet only in the last decade have they won a World Series.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, money doesn't guarantee a championship but it sure as hell shortens the odds. I can't remember the last time the Yankees weren't in the playoffs or in close contention. Is it a coincidence that they've had the largest payroll since the dawn of time? Money may not buy championships but it's the difference between "maybe" and "probably."

As for why I didn't tackle your NHL and NFL comments, I truly can not stand both football and hockey so I feel as if it's best for me not to comment on either of them ;)
Click to expand...

I can't stand football either, but I'm tangentially aware of the goings on in that respect. Excepting the Patriots, there hasn't really been a favourite in the last 15 years. Largely due to the cap, I gather.
 
clint g said:
Baseball is fine the way it is :cool: Rather than implement a salary cap, how about some of those cheap-ass club owners actually invest in their teams. They cry fowl when their teams are shit but that's because they don't spend the money to get the good players. Once they get the good players their team will start winning. Once the team starts to win, the fans will come and once the fans start to come they will make back their money.
Click to expand...

But even with the most devoted investors fielding a winning team for a year or two, there's simply no way for the merchandising & TV rights of a small market team like Kansas City to be as lucrative as that of a large market team like New York.

In addition to the NFL & NHL, salary caps have done well for the NBA. There have still been a few dynasties over the years-- old school Boston Celtics, the L.A. Lakers during the Kareem Abdul Jabar and Kobe Bryant years, the Chicago Bulls during the Michael Jordan years. The San Antonio Spurs have been pretty consistently competitive for the last couple decades. But it's a relatively fluid league. (Remember when the Dallas Mavericks used to always be the perennial cellar dwellers?)
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
They tried a salary cap before. Didn't work out too well. In fact, it resulted in a little thing called a STRIKE. :mad:
Click to expand...

Oh, believe me, I know. I was a baseball freak when I was a kid. The work-stoppage of '94 killed my interest in the sport for more than a decade. Nothing worse than a huge display of blatant capitalism to take the magic out of sport for a ten-year-old kid.

Now that I'm older and a little more pragmatic though, I support it. Not for the same reason the owners did then, of course. But it makes sense.
 
But the fact remains, the players will never go for a salary cap - we've all seen it. The union won't allow it. (Not surprising, really. The very concept of a salary cap goes against everything a union stands for.) So there will never be one.

And to be honest, I don't give a flying fuck how much the players make. As long as I can see baseball games, LET them make millions. What the hell do I care what their salary is? They actually do have to work at it, you know. ;) And lest anyone accuse me of having a vested interest because of who my favorite team is: They haven't won every world series, you know. They still have to compete. And at least the Boss puts all the money BACK INTO THE TEAM.
 
I dont believe a salary cap is something that will need to be worried about until a few teams go out of business. Of course baseball being the glacially moving forward sport that it is will probably need half the league to fold before they can make a decision.
 
I'm not on board with the salary cap either. Look at the teams with the highest profit margins, you'll be surprised. Most of them suck. Like Laser Beam said, they take the revenue sharing a pocket it rather than fielding a decent team.

http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/baseballs_revenue_sharing_problem

I'd rather see MLB mandate that revenue sharing money than implement some arbitrary cap.

And it's not the same teams every year getting it done. In the past decade, there were 8 different champs. And I don't buy the big market small market thing either. Minnesota usually fields a competitive team despite being in a 'small' market. The Mets, in a big market, usually suck, much to my dismay.
 
The Borgified Corpse said:
clint g said:
Baseball is fine the way it is :cool: Rather than implement a salary cap, how about some of those cheap-ass club owners actually invest in their teams. They cry fowl when their teams are shit but that's because they don't spend the money to get the good players. Once they get the good players their team will start winning. Once the team starts to win, the fans will come and once the fans start to come they will make back their money.
Click to expand...

But even with the most devoted investors fielding a winning team for a year or two, there's simply no way for the merchandising & TV rights of a small market team like Kansas City to be as lucrative as that of a large market team like New York.

In addition to the NFL & NHL, salary caps have done well for the NBA. There have still been a few dynasties over the years-- old school Boston Celtics, the L.A. Lakers during the Kareem Abdul Jabar and Kobe Bryant years, the Chicago Bulls during the Michael Jordan years. The San Antonio Spurs have been pretty consistently competitive for the last couple decades. But it's a relatively fluid league. (Remember when the Dallas Mavericks used to always be the perennial cellar dwellers?)
Click to expand...
You need to be a winning team for more than a year or two. Take a look at Baltimore. When they invested in a new stadium and had a great team, they were always selling out in the 1990s. Then they started sucking and all that went down hill. You need to make sure you are constantly competitive. If you're constantly competitive, you will sell out games.

Also, lest we forget, these big market teams like the Angels, Red Sox, and the Yankees, draw out the crowd when they go to a city like KC so really, KC should be thanking them :cool:
 
Mr. Adventure said:
What're ya, a socialist? We don't need no Obamaball.
;)
Click to expand...

I do think it's kind of funny that most of the American sports leagues - except for baseball - are organised in an almost collectivist way while football/soccer in Europe is hyper-capitalistic in many countries.
Sharing the revenue of merchandising sales equally for example like they are doing in the NFL I think, would be unthinkable here.
Also that whole draft system. In Europe, the best young players go the richest/best teams, simple as that, not to the worst teams in the league like in the US. ;)
 
Well, I'm a Blue Jays fan, so I guess it's no surprise I completely agree that baseball needs a salary cap. I can't help but look at the NHL, and the way that the cap has ratcheted up the competition to a whole other level—I mean, ever since the lockout, it seems that the final three or four playoff spots in the East don't get decided until the last few games of the year. It's damn exciting, has the effect of switching things up on an annual basis, and has greatly equalized the talent across the league.

I wouldn't bet on it happening any time soon, though... baseball is far too conservative. 'Course, I also think they should let 16 teams into the playoffs instead of eight, so what do I know?
 
My two favorite teams in all of sports are the San Francisco 49ers and the New York Yankees. The 49ers were devastated by the salary cap instituted by the NFL in 1994, and haven't been competitive in nearly a decade, despite their two-decade-long stay near the top of the NFL. Until last year, no team had won more Superbowls than the Niners did in that twenty-year period.

I can't imagine that a salary cap would be much better for the Yankees than one was for the 49ers. One thing I like about the Yankees is their incredible dominance; that one team has one a quarter of all World Series is astonishing and impressive. I enjoy their history of excellence, and I would be very disappointed to see them forced into decline in the name of a more even playing field.

Instead of instituting a salary cap to lower the level of the best teams to that of the remainder of the leagues, why not close down or combine poorly performing teams? We have so many teams in our major sports that it's difficult to keep track of them all. (I didn't see the Houston Texans play until they'd been in the league for more than seven years, and I don't think I've ever seen the Rangers or the Padres.) With the exception of a few powerhouses, the best players are spread over many teams, rather than concentrated in fewer, more memorable squads.

I think our major sports could do well to concentrate their best in only a few major cities. Baseball especially could benefit from greater centralization; removing its less-impressive teams might help capture the public attention that's been moving inexorably toward football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top