83 replies to this topic

[Reggie's Racquet]

It is clear that the Red Sox are penalized by playing in the AL East. If they played in any other division in the AL they probably would finish with the first or second best record in the league most years.

It is always going to be an impossible task to compete against a team that can outspend you every year by 100 million dollars. With that said Major League Baseball clearly needs a salary cap. The other three major sports have one. Baseball needs to establish a level playing field for all franchises.

If that is not going to happen then teams should be reseeded for playoff positions at the end of the season and after each round. I do recognize that it would not have mattered this year.

Under the current system the Red Sox will most likely finish as the wildcard team 8 out of 10 years. And this means never having home field advantage under the current system even though their record might be better than the AL West and Central Division winners. The Red Sox play much better at home. Home field advantage for this team is huge. Playoff reseeding would be a very good development for the Red Sox.

So if baseball does not get serious about a salary cap they should at least get serious about playoff reseeding. Thoughts?

[SemperFidelisSox]

You do realize that the creation of the wild card system, the restructuring of divisions from four to six, and the lack of a salary cap has created more parity over the last 10 years than any other sport, right?

You'll see a new Fenway Park on the moon before you ever see a salary cap in MLB.

[nevermind]

I agree.

This is the first year I remember the Angels with a better record by two games.

I have thought about a round robin type playoff system. One where the team with the best record gets the best odds to move on while the team with the worst record gets the toughest.

It gets really old when you are in August and know you are playing the Angels again for the third straight season. Traveling 3000 miles to play the first two games in their park.

I would love to hear other suggestions.

[Discofever]

I am a Yankees fan. So it may not be shocking to you guys that I am against a cap. But its for reasons that don't concern the Yankees. Because if there was a cap, we'd be the at limit anyway.


There is no incentive for teams to spend just because there is a cap. Teams like the Marlins will continue to pocket their money.


I actually like the idea of revenue sharing and the luxury tax. Some teams DO get a shit ton of money. They just don't put it back in their product. Which is a problem. We need a way to force them to spend some of it on the team. But that too raises problems since it would be inefficient and stupid to spend the money just to spend the money.

And some of my other points can be summed up better by professional writers.

Dave Szymborski

CODE

MLB's revenues have been exploding since 2003 and player salaries have simply not matched this increase in revenues. In 2003, players in baseball made 63% of league revenues. In 2008, that number appears to be 52% of league revenues, or less than any of the other major professional leagues in the US, which all have salary caps... Going by the NFL formula, very generous considering the MLBPA is far more powerful an entity than any other union in sports, the payroll floor for 2009 would almost certainly be in the $100 million range. 58% of league revenue, as the players in NFL get, would be, in baseball, an average team payroll of a hair under $120 million. It's pretty clear that while the Yankees are outspending everyone comfortably, the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the payroll disparity as the Yankees do.

Rich Justice

CODE

Baseball has huge revenue disparity, but the Yankees this week wrote a check of close to $27 million to the poorer teams. That money makes it easier for the Royals, Pirates, etc., to contend. If those owners choose to pocket those checks and show a profit, that's on them, not the system.

A high-ranking MLB official — not Commissioiner Selig, by the way — once told me, ''There are owners that would like to see the Yankees win every year.''

''You mean 'contend' every year,'' I said.

[b]''No,'' he said,. ''Win. The World Series. They believe it raises the water level for everyone.''[/b]

In 2006, the Rays collected more than $30 million in revenue sharing. However, their payroll was just $35 million. Of all the solutions out there, I like Michael Lewis' the best.

http://www.nytimes.c...on/03lewis.html

Edited by Discofever, 13 October 2009 - 09:00 PM.

[Walpole Joe's Neighbor]

I am a Yankees fan. So it may not be shocking to you guys that I am against a cap. But its for reasons that don't concern the Yankees. Because if there was a cap, we'd be the at limit anyway.


There is no incentive for teams to spend just because there is a cap. Teams like the Marlins will continue to pocket their money.

Cmon now. They wrote a check for 27 million to the poorer teams for them to SPLIT and then outspent them by 150 million. Please. The quote that the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the disparity as the Yankees do is an absolute joke. IF the Rays or Pirates or Royals spent every single penny of their rev share money plus they still wouldn't be within 100 million of the Yankee payroll. Are there some teams that take the money vs. putting it all back in? Sure. Possibly because they realize if they did they'd still be spitting into the wind.

[Orel Miraculous]

It is clear that the Red Sox are penalized by playing in the AL East. If they played in any other division in the AL they probably would finish with the first or second best record in the league most years.

It is always going to be an impossible task to compete against a team that can outspend you every year by 100 million dollars. With that said Major League Baseball clearly needs a salary cap. The other three major sports have one. Baseball needs to establish a level playing field for all franchises.

If that is not going to happen then teams should be reseeded for playoff positions at the end of the season and after each round. I do recognize that it would not have mattered this year.

Under the current system the Red Sox will most likely finish as the wildcard team 8 out of 10 years. And this means never having home field advantage under the current system even though their record might be better than the AL West and Central Division winners. The Red Sox play much better at home. Home field advantage for this team is huge. Playoff reseeding would be a very good development for the Red Sox.

So if baseball does not get serious about a salary cap they should at least get serious about playoff reseeding. Thoughts?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that your argument is: baseball (which actually has more competitive parity than any other sport right now) should implement a salary cap or playoff reseeding because the Red Sox, who are the only team to win multiple championships this decade, are at a disadvantage. Good argument.

Edit: Post #69, holla!

Edited by Orel Miraculous, 13 October 2009 - 09:19 PM.

[Spacemans Bong]

Cmon now. They wrote a check for 27 million to the poorer teams for them to SPLIT and then outspent them by 150 million. Please. The quote that the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the disparity as the Yankees do is an absolute joke. IF the Rays or Pirates or Royals spent every single penny of their rev share money plus they still wouldn't be within 100 million of the Yankee payroll. Are there some teams that take the money vs. putting it all back in? Sure. Possibly because they realize if they did they'd still be spitting into the wind.

The Rays, Pirates and Royals don't have as many fans as the Yankees combined. I don't really understand why teams that not a lot of people care about deserve an equal shot. It's bad business for the Rays, who can't draw 30,000 people without half that number being fans of the opposing team, to have an equal shot with the most popular baseball team in the country. They don't deserve no chance, but that's why we have revenue sharing and the wild card.

Furthermore, the Pirates and Royals do not play in divisions that have the Yankees or Red Sox in them. The Central has been eminently winnable in both leagues for most of this decade, that shouldn't excuse the absolutely horrible drafting, scouting and trading records by both teams. They've got a long history of being baseball's retards. I feel zero sympathy with them.

Edited by Spacemans Bong, 14 October 2009 - 06:18 AM.

[SonsOfCharlieZink]

Obviously the solution is to create a Northern division: Jays, Sox, Tigers, Brewers ,Twins and bring back the Expos. Cold weather league.

[BigMike]

It is clear that the Red Sox are penalized by playing in the AL East. If they played in any other division in the AL they probably would finish with the first or second best record in the league most years.

It is always going to be an impossible task to compete against a team that can outspend you every year by 100 million dollars. With that said Major League Baseball clearly needs a salary cap. The other three major sports have one. Baseball needs to establish a level playing field for all franchises.

I am a proponent of setting the schedules in the playoffs so that 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. Ste it by record, and ignore this silly play the WC team, unless the WC team is from the same division. Simply seed by record.

In terms of the Salary cap. Well the Red Sox may be only able to spend 100 million less than the Yanks (I think it is closer to 50 honestly). The Yanks payroll is around 200 mil, and the Sox can carry a payroll around 150.

A salary cap does little unless the cap is set at around a level that all teams could afford AND basically all aspects of the business are capped. Kind of like the NFL system, but that only works if you have real revenue sharing, not the limited amount mlb has. And all of this would HURT the Red Sox more than any team in baseball other than of course the Yankees

Or we could just ask John Henry what he wants the Sox budget to be moving forward, and set the salary cap at exactly 1 million above what the Sox want to spen annually. Then the Red Sox get the most bang for their buck

[Alternate34]

The Rays, Pirates and Royals don't have as many fans as the Yankees combined. I don't really understand why teams that not a lot of people care about deserve an equal shot. It's bad business for the Rays, who can't draw 30,000 people without half that number being fans of the opposing team, to have an equal shot with the most popular baseball team in the country. They don't deserve no chance, but that's why we have revenue sharing and the wild card.

Furthermore, the Pirates and Royals do not play in divisions that have the Yankees or Red Sox in them. The Central has been eminently winnable in both leagues for most of this decade, that shouldn't excuse the absolutely horrible drafting, scouting and trading records by both teams. They've got a long history of being baseball's retards. I feel zero sympathy with them.

There is a chicken egg problem here. Teams that win are teams that draw fans in. If payroll disparity is preventing teams from winning, then it prevents them from getting fans. I agree the Pirates and Royals management are functionally baseball retards.

[wickedwitch]

The Rays, Pirates and Royals don't have as many fans as the Yankees combined. I don't really understand why teams that not a lot of people care about deserve an equal shot. It's bad business for the Rays, who can't draw 30,000 people without half that number being fans of the opposing team, to have an equal shot with the most popular baseball team in the country. They don't deserve no chance, but that's why we have revenue sharing and the wild card.

The Red Sox and Yankees weren't drawing big crowds when they sucked either.

[MoGator71]

I am a proponent of setting the schedules in the playoffs so that 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. Ste it by record, and ignore this silly play the WC team, unless the WC team is from the same division. Simply seed by record.

In terms of the Salary cap. Well the Red Sox may be only able to spend 100 million less than the Yanks (I think it is closer to 50 honestly). The Yanks payroll is around 200 mil, and the Sox can carry a payroll around 150.

A salary cap does little unless the cap is set at around a level that all teams could afford AND basically all aspects of the business are capped. Kind of like the NFL system, but that only works if you have real revenue sharing, not the limited amount mlb has. And all of this would HURT the Red Sox more than any team in baseball other than of course the Yankees

Or we could just ask John Henry what he wants the Sox budget to be moving forward, and set the salary cap at exactly 1 million above what the Sox want to spen annually. Then the Red Sox get the most bang for their buck

I'm curious what the cap number would be, if the league were to tie it to revenue. I want to say the capped leagues all have their cap set to someplace in the 60-65% of revenue range, but I don't think baseball has ever opened its books or released its revenue numbers. Either way I can't see MLB logistically being able to implement a meaningful salary cap...say they decided on 100M, are they really going to force the Yankees to cut their payroll by 50%? That would cripple their franchise. And while the Sox fan in me is all for Yankee crippling, I can't see MLB being willing to do that.

It would be interesting, seeing what MLB would look like with a cap and a floor in place. I tend to believe the lousy teams would still be lousy though; money can't cure stupid. Money can cover up the odd (Lugo) blunder...but it doesn't save you from giving up talent to pay Yuni Betancourt.

[glennhoffmania]

You do realize that the creation of the wild card system, the restructuring of divisions from four to six, and the lack of a salary cap has created more parity over the last 10 years than any other sport, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that your argument is: baseball (which actually has more competitive parity than any other sport right now)

What is this based on? The NFL has had incredible parity lately. Aside from a couple of teams like New England and Pittsburgh, which have excellent management, there has been a lot of fluctuation lately. Six years ago, TB and Oakland played in the SB and they both really suck now. Miami was a joke for a while and won the division last year. Seattle, Chicago, Philly, Carolina, Tennessee, Atlanta, Denver, Baltimore, Indy, Oakland, Tampa, NYG, Arizona, and St. Louis have all been in the SB over the last decade. Very few teams have been either consistently good or bad over the last ten years.

In baseball, while there certainly have been some teams that manage to make the playoffs out of nowhere and get to the WS (TB), come close (Milwaukee), or even win the WS (Florida), it's pretty much NY, Boston, and Anaheim over the last 6 years in the AL. The NL has had more parity, but Atlanta made the playoffs every year for over a decade until 2006, St. Louis has made the playoffs seven of the last ten years, and Philly has been in the last three years after finishing second the preceding three years. The fact that Boston and NY don't win the WS every year doesn't mean there's a ton of parity

Edited by glennhoffmania, 14 October 2009 - 09:22 AM.

[NoXInNixon]

There is a chicken egg problem here. Teams that win are teams that draw fans in. If payroll disparity is preventing teams from winning, then it prevents them from getting fans. I agree the Pirates and Royals management are functionally baseball retards.

The Rays went to the World Series and looked in the early going like contenders again this year, and their attendance still sucked. Tampa Bay is simply not a viable baseball market, and it would be an extremely poor allocation of resources if they had an equal chance of getting the best players as the Red Sox and Yankees.

I agree 100% with Bong. Teams with the most fans who spend the most money on tickets and get the highest local TV ratings should have an advantage when it comes to signing the best players. As much as we hate them, it is good for baseball that the Yankees are the best team. The Red Sox still have a chance to make the playoffs every year, and home field isn't such a big deal that it's worth worrying about.

[NYCSox]

I'm curious what the cap number would be, if the league were to tie it to revenue. I want to say the capped leagues all have their cap set to someplace in the 60-65% of revenue range, but I don't think baseball has ever opened its books or released its revenue numbers. Either way I can't see MLB logistically being able to implement a meaningful salary cap...say they decided on 100M, are they really going to force the Yankees to cut their payroll by 50%? That would cripple their franchise. And while the Sox fan in me is all for Yankee crippling, I can't see MLB being willing to do that.

I think someone upthread posted an estimate of $110-$120 million for a cap at about 60% of revenues, which sounds about right. As for implementation, the NHL managed to do it by allowing buyouts of existing contracts. So it can certainly be done in MLB as well.

[UNCSoxFan5]

I would rather see a salary floor in place. Force the low market teams to actually spend some of the revenue sharing dollars they are being handed. This will drive more teams to spend money, getting better players to the lower market teams. This should in theory make them better and draw more fans. I would also like to see a team moved in the NYC area for a third team given the size of New York's market. Someone had espoused this idea a few weeks ago.

[Alternate34]

You do realize that the creation of the wild card system, the restructuring of divisions from four to six, and the lack of a salary cap has created more parity over the last 10 years than any other sport, right?

You'll see a new Fenway Park on the moon before you ever see a salary cap in MLB.

Is this true? What study shows this? Is it based only on teams winning championships? Is it based on winning percentage of teams?

MLB 1999-2008
# teams made playoffs: 24/30
# teams won World Series: 7/30
# teams made World Series: 15/30
# teams >.500 record: 28/30
# teams 1 playoff appearance: 6
# teams >3 playoff appearances: 9
# teams >5 playoff appeanances: 4

NFL 1999-2008
# teams made playoffs: 31/32 (poor Houston Texans)
# teams won Super Bowl: 7/32
# teams made Super Bowl: 13/32
# teams >.500 record: 31/32
# teams 1 playoff appearance: 5
# teams >3 playoff appearances: 17
# teams >5 playoff appeanances: 8

Quick explanation. Number of teams >.500 record is the number of different franchises that have achieved a >.500 record in at least one season during the time.

I used playoff numbers to determine parity because it is meaningful to make the playoffs. In both baseball and football, wild card teams have managed to make it to an win their respective championships. Making the playoffs means more revenue.

I don't see why either league could claim to have more parity. The NFL can say that teams have a better shot at making the playoffs multiple times. That is essentially a function of having more playoff spots. I know that the standard deviation of winning percentage is lower in baseball (no 162-0 or 0-162 teams), but that is heavily influenced by the random nature of baseball and the distribution of starters. A team varies greatly in quality from game to game because they have to rotate starters.

Maybe the case could be made that the AL East is unfair to those in it aside from the Yankees and the Red Sox. It's hard to feel for Toronto and Baltimore because of their market size. The quality of management for both teams has ranged from average to very poor, with a heavy weight on very poor.

[Scoops Bolling]

I would rather see a salary floor in place. Force the low market teams to actually spend some of the revenue sharing dollars they are being handed. This will drive more teams to spend money, getting better players to the lower market teams. This should in theory make them better and draw more fans. I would also like to see a team moved in the NYC area for a third team given the size of New York's market. Someone had espoused this idea a few weeks ago.

My numbers are a couple years out of date, but they should still pretty accurately reflect reality:

Market Size	Revenue-Payroll (in millions)	Operating Income (in millions)
Small Market	$88.5	$17.62
Mid Market	$83	$13.78
Large Market	$90.2	$14.56
League Average	$87.2	$15.32

[1] This figure does not include the outlier Marlins, as these are numbers based on the 2006 season when the Marlins' payroll was a total aberration at $15 million


Numbers are based on the 2006 season. "Market Size" was very loosely defined, and simply divided the league into three tiers by revenue. Operating income refers to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.

Long story short: If the published numbers accurately reflect reality, there is no significant difference between how franchises spend their revenues, nor their total profit levels on average.

EDIT: Table fixed.

Edited by Scoops Bolling, 14 October 2009 - 10:20 AM.

[glennhoffmania]

MLB 1999-2008
# teams made playoffs: 24/30
# teams 1 playoff appearance: 6

NFL 1999-2008
# teams made playoffs: 31/32 (poor Houston Texans)
# teams 1 playoff appearance: 5

I don't get this. Unless there is supposed to be a > sign before the 1's.

[wickedwitch]

Maybe the case could be made that the AL East is unfair to those in it aside from the Yankees and the Red Sox. It's hard to feel for Toronto and Baltimore because of their market size. The quality of management for both teams has ranged from average to very poor, with a heavy weight on very poor.

Toronto was actually very good several years in this past decade. It doesn't reflect in their record because of the competition, but they were a top 5 team in baseball based on the number of pythag wins in 2008 for example.

[Discofever]

I would rather see a salary floor in place. Force the low market teams to actually spend some of the revenue sharing dollars they are being handed.

That sounds good at first, but you can't force teams to spend money just to spend money. One of the most important factors in running a franchise is efficiency. Just spending money to meet a salary floor and throwing it whoever is not very efficient or effective.

[Discofever]

I think someone upthread posted an estimate of $110-$120 million for a cap at about 60% of revenues, which sounds about right. As for implementation, the NHL managed to do it by allowing buyouts of existing contracts. So it can certainly be done in MLB as well.

That would be the cap FLOOR if there was one.

CODE

MLB's revenues have been exploding since 2003 and player salaries have simply not matched this increase in revenues. In 2003, players in baseball made 63% of league revenues. In 2008, that number appears to be 52% of league revenues, or less than any of the other major professional leagues in the US, which all have salary caps... Going by the NFL formula, very generous considering the MLBPA is far more powerful an entity than any other union in sports, the payroll floor for 2009 would almost certainly be in the $100 million range. 58% of league revenue, as the players in NFL get, would be, in baseball, an average team payroll of a hair under $120 million. It's pretty clear that while the Yankees are outspending everyone comfortably, the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the payroll disparity as the Yankees do.

Edited by Discofever, 14 October 2009 - 02:27 PM.

[Cuzittt]

That would be the cap FLOOR if there was one.

CODE

MLB's revenues have been exploding since 2003 and player salaries have simply not matched this increase in revenues. In 2003, players in baseball made 63% of league revenues. In 2008, that number appears to be 52% of league revenues, or less than any of the other major professional leagues in the US, which all have salary caps... Going by the NFL formula, very generous considering the MLBPA is far more powerful an entity than any other union in sports, the payroll floor for 2009 would almost certainly be in the $100 million range. 58% of league revenue, as the players in NFL get, would be, in baseball, an average team payroll of a hair under $120 million. It's pretty clear that while the Yankees are outspending everyone comfortably, the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the payroll disparity as the Yankees do.

The problem with this is that neither the NFL does not have the same structure as MLB. One can't just look at MLB player salaries to determine how much the team is spending on players costs... as it does not take into account all the money spent on the players in the minor league system.

Of course, it is completely useless to compare the NFL with MLB as in the NFL because of how the NFL is structured. In other words, teams pretty much all make similar amounts of money due, in large part, to the national TV package. Baseball, obviously, has wide disparities in monetary input because of local television contracts... and therefore it would be very difficult to make a floor unless you have a much larger revenue sharing proposal.

[jtn46]

I would rather see a salary floor in place. Force the low market teams to actually spend some of the revenue sharing dollars they are being handed. This will drive more teams to spend money, getting better players to the lower market teams. This should in theory make them better and draw more fans. I would also like to see a team moved in the NYC area for a third team given the size of New York's market. Someone had espoused this idea a few weeks ago.

Everyone always spouts this stupid idea, just like they always spout the belief that owners pocket revenue sharing, because for some reason, when this debate comes up, morons in the media completely ignore scouting, player development, draft bonuses, international drafts, not to mention the general costs of owning and maintaining a stadium, paying their personnel, etc... They think a baseball team costs whatever its major league payroll is, which is obviously not remotely true.

Think about the Marlins, who are often the scapegoat for this argument...the Marlins have tried like hell to get their own stadium, and it may finally happen, but it's taken an eternity (Mnookin has a very good summary on the difficulties Henry went through in Feeding the Monster trying to get a stadium built when he owned the team) and in the meantime, they have terrible attendance. The Marlins produce talent as well as any organization in baseball. They've won 2 World Series in their relatively short existence. What is the knock, exactly? They're struggling to generate revenue, but they clearly have terrific player development, scouting and a great front office. If the Marlins new stadium creates revenue, then I'm sure the Marlins will be very good. That's enough of an "if" though, that I don't see why an owner should spend his own money to get a stadium built when there's no guarantee that people will actually spend money to go to the stadium.

The other flaw in this argument is this idea that owners spend their own money on anything. When they buy the team, sure, but aside from a couple owners, you almost never hear of this happening (I think Ilitch spends his own money sometimes in Detroit). Steinbrenner probably lost a little money for a few seasons when he bought the Yankees, but he's not spending his own money and hasn't in decades, the Yankees have an absurd amount of revenue coming in. Baseball teams are businesses. Owners generally don't make much money with them, but they certainly should be allowed to try.

If there are owners out there who are abusing this to nearly the level that sports writers believe, there doesn't need to be an official floor, Selig can police that himself.

[jtn46]

There is a chicken egg problem here. Teams that win are teams that draw fans in. If payroll disparity is preventing teams from winning, then it prevents them from getting fans.

And some markets are just always going to have an easier time generating revenue. New York City has a huge population, is located in the North East, which is concentrated, putting a lot of states in driving distance, it's a huge tourist attraction, it's the number 1 media market, etc... In baseball, because there's no cap, this creates a big advantage for the Yankees and Mets. Sure, sometimes circumstances prevent those franchises from capitalizing on those advantages, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

The scariest thing about baseball for me is the traveling sell-out machine that the Yankees and Red Sox have become. Fans are starting to gravitate towards a handful of successful franchises, and if that trend continues, it's going to just bankrupt the smaller teams, which will bankrupt the sport. For some reason, fans of the NFL grasp that every team needs to be successful for the league to prosper, but in baseball, it's OK if the Yankees put the Rays out of business. The fact that there are teams that have pathetic attendance should scare the crap out of baseball fans, but I don't know, instead we mock those franchises and their fanbase.

[NYCSox]

The fact that there are teams that have pathetic attendance should scare the crap out of baseball fans, but I don't know, instead we mock those franchises and their fanbase.

It's very scary. There are a number of teams that are drawing so few fans that I could see them disappearing as franchises within the next 10 years, including Oakland, KC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Florida and Tampa.

[SmoothriderSean]

It's very scary. There are a number of teams that are drawing so few fans that I could see them disappearing as franchises within the next 10 years, including Oakland, KC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Florida and Tampa.

The A's were in the top 3 AL teams in attendance during their dominance from '89 to '91; in the 90's the Indians set the sellout record the Red Sox just broke; and the Reds drew well (relative to the league) during the Machine days in the 70s. Toronto's not drawing very well right now, but in the early 90's the Skydome was packed. My point is that at least some of these cities don't suffer from being "just not into baseball" or whatever; they've drawn well when they've fielded good teams.

I do wonder, though, if rising ticket prices are taking their toll. Inflation-adjusted average ticket prices have risen over the last 50 years (though not as much as you might think). The figures I found don't include concessions or parking, either. In my experience, it seems like few people make a snap decision to hit up a baseball game instead of a movie, etc. Was this always the case? I live in the Bay Area, and deciding on a whim to go to an A's game usually works against you; ridiculously cheap tickets are available, but you need to buy online with a code, or bring a pepsi can, or make sure it's Tuesday, or whatever else to actually get a deal. Even though the A's haven't had anything near a Royals-scale disaster on the field, something's not working.

[Spacemans Bong]

I think some of you people need a sense of perspective if you think drawing one and three-quarter million people to your baseball team is so few that you can't run a franchise on it. The A's draw much less than that in a terrible stadium where they get very little luxury box revenue and are open about the fact they turn a profit every year. Forbes is certainly not estimating the Rays as money-losers: they had the Rays pulling in a tidy $30 mil in profit last year. In fact, only two teams failed to break even: The Yankees, which I'm not sure I buy, and the Detroit Tigers, which is obvious when you try and spend like Boston, NY or LA with Detroit money.

Also that traveling Red Sox fanbase means more money for other teams, as getting 30,000 for your Rays game when you get 15,000 for a game versus the Angels means more money for the Rays. they don't have to give that money back just because fans of the other team bought the ticket.

[Synovia]

There is no incentive for teams to spend just because there is a cap. Teams like the Marlins will continue to pocket their money.

I don't think there are any sports that have a salary cap that don't also have a salary floor. A Cap and Floor gets rid of the Marlins problem.


For all the talk in football of certain teams being cheap, they all spend in excess of 90% of the cap, because they have to.

[Synovia]

The A's were in the top 3 AL teams in attendance during their dominance from '89 to '91; in the 90's the Indians set the sellout record the Red Sox just broke; and the Reds drew well (relative to the league) during the Machine days in the 70s. Toronto's not drawing very well right now, but in the early 90's the Skydome was packed. My point is that at least some of these cities don't suffer from being "just not into baseball" or whatever; they've drawn well when they've fielded good teams.

Thats kind of the point though, isn't it? If teams aren't successful every couple of years, their fan bases fall apart, and it takes a couple of years of winning to get them back.

The NFL understands this, and the only teams that suffer from serious attendance issues in the NFL right now are Oakland and Detroit, who have both been terrible for at least 5 years. When there's hope of being competitive, fans show up.

[NoXInNixon]

It's very scary. There are a number of teams that are drawing so few fans that I could see them disappearing as franchises within the next 10 years, including Oakland, KC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Florida and Tampa.

I don't see fewer teams as a bad thing. I wouldn't miss any of those teams if they dissappeared due to lack of fan support.

[NoXInNixon]

The NFL understands this, and the only teams that suffer from serious attendance issues in the NFL right now are Oakland and Detroit, who have both been terrible for at least 5 years. When there's hope of being competitive, fans show up.

The NFL is a completely different sort of league. Because they only play one game per week, it's a lot easier for great players on teams in small markets to get the national media coverage they deserve. Most of the revenue is generated on a league-wide level through TV deals, and it's easier for teams in small markets to sell out 8 home games. Baseball is local. Most of their revenue is generated through local TV deals and ticket sales. Teams in small markets can't sell out 81 home games quite as easily.

What works for the NFL won't work for MLB.

[UNCSoxFan5]

That sounds good at first, but you can't force teams to spend money just to spend money. One of the most important factors in running a franchise is efficiency. Just spending money to meet a salary floor and throwing it whoever is not very efficient or effective.

Yes, but you would hope that most teams have competent management at this point and this would at least help to put a better product on the field. A team like Florida can't hold onto the Miguel Cabreras of the world because their ownership refuses to spend some of its revenue sharing money. In theory, a cap floor would force them along the path of doing these types of moves.

[zenter]

Thats kind of the point though, isn't it? If teams aren't successful every couple of years, their fan bases fall apart, and it takes a couple of years of winning to get them back.

The NFL understands this, and the only teams that suffer from serious attendance issues in the NFL right now are Oakland and Detroit, who have both been terrible for at least 5 years. When there's hope of being competitive, fans show up.

While true, that's not necessarily an argument for Cap+Floor, mainly because NFL is a bad comp in so many ways...

1. 16 Game Regular season, 1 per week per team.
2. 4 rounds of playoffs, with byes.
3. ALL games around the weekend, when people have more time.
4. 60K seats per stadium, minimum.
5. Owner-friendly contract rules.
6. Draft picks can be traded.
7. Draft = instant, more predictable, impact.
8. Different free agency rules.
9. Less statistically "noisy". It takes a few games to pretty well determine which teams are at least very good. It could take half a baseball season and still not be clear.
10. High impact players - a single player cannot make as big an impact in baseball as a single player can in football.

While I think a salary cap/floor would be nice, there are ways to enhance competitive balance that work outside of salary-related ones. These include, in no particular order:

1. Radical realignment. Someone previously mentioned eliminating AL and NL altogether, and that may not be a bad idea.
2. Balanced schedule, playoff seeding by record. (You really can't have the latter without the former)
3. More playoff teams - the number six has been tossed around.
4. Draft rights "ownership" - Teams will no longer be afraid to draft the best player, trade picks.
5. Lax-er free-agency rules. The more free agents there are, the higher the supply, the lower the cost. I heard an anecdote (true or not, I don't know) that some owner, during the Curt Flood case, said, "Let 'em all be free agents," or something to that effect.
6. Eliminate/radically modify draft compensation rules to limit impact on any team.

I don't know how feasible any of these ideas would be, but I think focusing on salary is a bit narrow.

EDIT: Forgot about draft compensation.

Edited by zenter, 15 October 2009 - 10:54 AM.

[Infield Infidel]

Also that traveling Red Sox fanbase means more money for other teams, as getting 30,000 for your Rays game when you get 15,000 for a game versus the Angels means more money for the Rays. they don't have to give that money back just because fans of the other team bought the ticket.

If the Rays are good, and/or attract their own following, and they get 25k for the 62 games the Sox/Yanks don't play there, that is much better for them than a 19 game bump from 15k to 30k (1.5M). Even if they average 20k (1.62M) it's better for them. (FWIW their problem is more stadium location than fanbase. The current owners inherited a terrible stadium deal; they can't leave St Pete (for Tampa, where the fans are) before 2027 w/o paying probably $5-10M per year). Long term, it's better for them to attract and build their own fan base

As for a salary floor, how exactly would that stop high spending teams from getting the best players? All that would have done last year is maybe make the Yankees spend $475M on Tex/CC/AJ instead of $435M. If they want a guy, they will always be able to outspend to get that guy. A salary floor alone just means crappy players will make more money, because other teams will have to spend the money on somebody. The status quo is better than a floor w/o a cap.

IMHO, the best way to start a cap would be to have a real draft slotting system, so bad teams could at least draft who they want without thinking so much about signability. That, and having an international amateur draft, and maybe cap international free agent spending.

Edited by Infield Infidel, 15 October 2009 - 11:13 AM.

[Spacemans Bong]

Thats kind of the point though, isn't it? If teams aren't successful every couple of years, their fan bases fall apart, and it takes a couple of years of winning to get them back.

The NFL understands this, and the only teams that suffer from serious attendance issues in the NFL right now are Oakland and Detroit, who have both been terrible for at least 5 years. When there's hope of being competitive, fans show up.

Uh...Jacksonville?

If teams suck, their fanbases fall apart. If teams are good, people show up. This is no different than any business (good product: customers, bad product: no customers), any other sports business, or even the NFL. The Raiders have fans, they just don't want to show up to watch JaMarcus Russell's fat ass rumble around the field and throw incompletions.

Besides, the NFL is an anamoly, both in its business structure and its schedule. You have eight opportunities to watch your team play live, it's a lot easier to get people to buy into that, even if the team's bad. Even the Marlins sell twice as many tickets as most NFL teams. You also have a structure which incentivizes fans and local TV companies - who buy tickets to show the games when demand isn't there in many instances - to buy tickets. No chance of watching on TV if there's not a sellout, after all.

I think places like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Kansas City and Cincinnati, which all have substantial, century-old baseball traditions, are in about as much danger of folding as I am of getting to fuck Christina Hendricks. Cincinnati has a fucking Opening Day parade - the only city in MLB that does this - to celebrate the Reds. Do people seriously think the Reds are going to go out of business? They just need to stop crapping on their best players and build a pitching staff.

Obviously the A's, Marlins and Rays are in a different boat, the A's because they have very stiff local competition and the Florida teams because of a historical apathy towards baseball. And hell, as much as I HATE the anti-marketing all three clubs have indulged in, ragging on their stadiums in order to convince people to actually believe their cries of apacolypse if they don't get a taxpayer-funded park, they do play in terrible stadiums, all of which have access issues on top of their fundamental multi-purpose suckiness.

If the Coliseum still had this,



people would go more often.

[UNCSoxFan5]

As for a salary floor, how exactly would that stop high spending teams from getting the best players? All that would have done last year is maybe make the Yankees spend $475M on Tex/CC/AJ instead of $435M. If they want a guy, they will always be able to outspend to get that guy. A salary floor alone just means crappy players will make more money, because other teams will have to spend the money on somebody. The status quo is better than a floor w/o a cap.

But, the Yankees do have a theoretical cap: their budget. If they didn't, they would have signed Beltran amongst others over the years.

[Spacemans Bong]

If the Rays are good, and/or attract their own following, and they get 25k for the 62 games the Sox/Yanks don't play here, that is much better for them than a 19 game bump from 15k to 30k. (FWIW their problem is more stadium location than fanbase. The current owners inherited a terrible stadium deal; they can't leave St Pete (for Tampa, where the fans are) before 2027 w/o paying probably $5-10M per year).

As for a salary floor, how exactly would that stop high spending teams from getting the best players? All that would have done last year is maybe make the Yankees spend $475M on Tex/CC/AJ instead of $435M. If they want a guy, they will always be able to outspend to get that guy. A salary floor alone just means crappy players will make more money, because other teams will have to spend the money on somebody. The status quo is better than a floor w/o a cap.

IMHO, the best way to start a cap would be to have a real draft slotting system, so bad teams could at least draft who they want without thinking so much about signability. That, and either having an international draft, or cap international free agent spending.

Well, if the Rays stay good they will attract their own following eventually. They have been good for 2 years; they were a joke for 10. It's not a fait accompli that the kids of all those transplants will be Yankees/Red Sox fans too.

High spending teams will get most of the best players under almost any circumstance, because they're also located in some of the most desirable places to play. What lower-revenue teams spending more would do is prevent a few things:

1) The bleeding of draft talent to teams that are more able to pay for them (I'm fine with a slotting system, personally).

2) Players getting traded when they become arb-eligible. If Miguel Cabrera is still a Marlin, they're possibly in the playoffs.

3) Players getting traded in obvious salary dumps.

If that happens, you get players in one place longer who build bonds with localities, and you also get more competition in free agency. More suitors means more choice for the players...maybe CC Sabathia really does go to California if he had the Giants, or the A's, or the Padres offering him similar bucks to the Yankees. Then it's not 475 million for the best players, it's more like 600-650 million, and even the Yankees have their limits.

[Spacemans Bong]

But, the Yankees do have a theoretical cap: their budget. If they didn't, they would have signed Beltran amongst others over the years.

The Yankees have been relatively quiet since 2004 in free agency. Most of their free agent signings have been their own players, Johnny Damon being the biggest exception. Maybe I'm missing someone else.

[Worst Trade Evah]

The Yankees have been relatively quiet since 2004 in free agency. Most of their free agent signings have been their own players, Johnny Damon being the biggest exception. Maybe I'm missing someone else.

Why should they get a pass for re-signing their own free-agents, when other teams have to make painful choices there? They want to keep a HOF core together for 15 years at vast expense, they keep it. Not many other teams have that option.

At any rate:

for 2009: Sabathia, Teixiera, Burnett ($450,000,000)
for 2008: ARod ($300,000,000), Posada ($52,000,000), Rivera ($45,000,000)
for 2007: Pettitte ($17,000,000), Igawa ($20,000,000)
for 2006: Damon ($52,000,000) and Farnsworth ($17,000,000)
for 2005: Johnson, Pavano, Wright, Womack (>$100,000,000 total)

So just in the last two off-seasons they've committed $850,000,000 to Sabathia, Teixeira, Burnett, ARod, Posada, and Rivera (an average AAV for all them of over $20,000,000).

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 15 October 2009 - 11:41 AM.

[Spacemans Bong]

Well, the winter of 2008, and the $450,000,000 guaranteed to Sabathia, Teixiera and Burnett. Or maybe I'm missing something. And why should they get a pass for re-signing their own free-agents, when other teams have to make painful choices there? They want to keep a HOF core together for 15 years at vast expense, they keep it. Not many other teams have that option.

Well I kinda sorta obviously meant if you're not trying to be intentionally obtuse that the Yankees were quiet in free agency up to the 2008-2009 offseason.

They get a pass for resigning their own free agents because most big market clubs have that option. When was the last time the Red Sox let somebody go that they felt they really wanted to keep?

[Spacemans Bong]

Why should they get a pass for re-signing their own free-agents, when other teams have to make painful choices there? They want to keep a HOF core together for 15 years at vast expense, they keep it. Not many other teams have that option.

At any rate:

2008: Sabathia, Teixiera, Burnett ($450,000,000)
2007: ARod ($300,000,000), Pettitte ($17,000,000), Igawa ($20,000,000)
2006: Posada and Rivera extensions, Damon ($52,000,000) and Farnsworth ($17,000,000)
2005: Johnson, Pavano, Wright, Womack (>$100,000,000 total)

Johnson was traded. I mentioned Damon. Igawa was a posting.

So basically you have got Kyle Farnsworth as the best example of a Yankee free agent signing besides Johnny Damon since 2004.

[TomRicardo]

The problem with this is that neither the NFL does not have the same structure as MLB. One can't just look at MLB player salaries to determine how much the team is spending on players costs... as it does not take into account all the money spent on the players in the minor league system.

Of course, it is completely useless to compare the NFL with MLB as in the NFL because of how the NFL is structured. In other words, teams pretty much all make similar amounts of money due, in large part, to the national TV package. Baseball, obviously, has wide disparities in monetary input because of local television contracts... and therefore it would be very difficult to make a floor unless you have a much larger revenue sharing proposal.

True however when a team's payroll is less than what it earns in revenue setting you have a huge problem.

[Worst Trade Evah]

Well I kinda sorta obviously meant if you're not trying to be intentionally obtuse that the Yankees were quiet in free agency up to the 2008-2009 offseason.

They get a pass for resigning their own free agents because most big market clubs have that option. When was the last time the Red Sox let somebody go that they felt they really wanted to keep?

The pass deal makes no sense to me. What matters is the money spent -- arbitrarily removing items from that makes no sense at all if you're trying assess spending. They didn't just trade for RJ -- they extended his contract two years to get him to waive his no-trade. These things don't happen in discreet bubbles.

These are the new obligations in spending the Yankees have made each year. They are gigantic, and dwarf any other team, even other "big market" teams.

[Worst Trade Evah]

Johnson was traded. I mentioned Damon. Igawa was a posting.

So basically you have got Kyle Farnsworth as the best example of a Yankee free agent signing besides Johnny Damon since 2004.

I'm at a loss.

The list is there. Those are the commitments in new spending the Yankees have made, mostly in free agency. All you can talk about is Kyle Farnsworth? ARod, Posada, and Rivera were free agents. The Yankees signed them. That they had previously played for the Yankees is fundamentally irrelevant. Unless "own free agent" is free, there's no point excluding them. That's $400,000,000 in a single off-season, followed up by $450,000,000 the very next off-season.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 15 October 2009 - 11:56 AM.

[Infield Infidel]

Well, if the Rays stay good they will attract their own following eventually. They have been good for 2 years; they were a joke for 10. It's not a fait accompli that the kids of all those transplants will be Yankees/Red Sox fans too.

Rays avg attendance:
1999-2007 15,900
2008 22,370
2009 23,148

I think that's a pretty significant improvement, one that may be sustainable and further improve incrementally. All those years when the previous ownership relied on Sox/Yanks fans to fill the seats their attendance was crap. and you can't build a fanbase w/o having some success. I also think the new ownership fan relations has helped a ton, the prior team was pretty pathetic. I'm sure some players think Florida or California are more desirable places to live, and would play there if the money was the same.

High spending teams will get most of the best players under almost any circumstance, because they're also located in some of the most desirable places to play. What lower-revenue teams spending more would do is prevent a few things:

1) The bleeding of draft talent to teams that are more able to pay for them (I'm fine with a slotting system, personally).

2) Players getting traded when they become arb-eligible. If Miguel Cabrera is still a Marlin, they're possibly in the playoffs.

3) Players getting traded in obvious salary dumps.

If that happens, you get players in one place longer who build bonds with localities, and you also get more competition in free agency. More suitors means more choice for the players...maybe CC Sabathia really does go to California if he had the Giants, or the A's, or the Padres offering him similar bucks to the Yankees. Then it's not 475 million for the best players, it's more like 600-650 million, and even the Yankees have their limits.

On the other points
1) Are you talking about players in the draft? I don't see how a floor give teams more money to draft with, unless with the floor there's an increase in revenue sharing.
2)For mid-level teams like the Twins and the Reds, it would definitely help. But for teams at the bottom, they wouldn't be able to keep spare money in the budget to prepare for arb, because they would have already spent it to reach the floor the previous year. There would be increased free-agent competition based on everyone spending more on marginal players to reach the floor.
3)If anything, there would be more dumps because of increased demand to spend on fringe players. It would make other players more wary of short deals, because they'd get dumped if the team needs money for arb players but also need to reach the floor

If that happens, you get players in one place longer who build bonds with localities, and you also get more competition in free agency. More suitors means more choice for the players...maybe CC Sabathia really does go to California if he had the Giants, or the A's, or the Padres offering him similar bucks to the Yankees. Then it's not 475 million for the best players, it's more like 600-650 million, and even the Yankees have their limits.

So basically you are saying every team should spend more money on players? Instead of making 475 mil, CC/Tex/AJ should have made 650 mil? that's a recipe for disaster for the sport. Where would that new money to spend come from? Increased Revenue sharing?

For people that always talk about teams not spending the revenue sharing money, teams like the Rays and Royals didn't pocket all that money, they used it to upgrade their stadiums. The new Rays owners have spent $50 million to improve the Trop over 3 years; The Royals just spent $250 million on renovations( edit - a lot of that was public money though).

Edited by Infield Infidel, 15 October 2009 - 12:39 PM.

[wickedwitch]

I don't see fewer teams as a bad thing. I wouldn't miss any of those teams if they dissappeared due to lack of fan support.

What an incredibly ignorant statement.

These teams have plenty of passionate fans, many of who have followed their team as long as you've followed the Red Sox. As long as the franchises are profitable, the teams aren't going anywhere, especially not to ensure that the poor Red Sox can get home field advantage in the playoffs.

Or would you have been okay with the Red Sox contracting when their attendance sucked?

[NoXInNixon]

What an incredibly ignorant statement.

These teams have plenty of passionate fans, many of who have followed their team as long as you've followed the Red Sox. As long as the franchises are profitable, the teams aren't going anywhere, especially not to ensure that the poor Red Sox can get home field advantage in the playoffs.

Or would you have been okay with the Red Sox contracting when their attendance sucked?

I'm not sure how to respond, because I'm not sure how your post is a logical response to my post. I'm obviously talking about teams that can't turn a profit because they're in a market too small to support a viable payroll and whose fans stop caring about a team who can't compete due to their payroll issues. I don't think that would ever have applied to the Red Sox.

[jtn46]

I'm not sure how to respond, because I'm not sure how your post is a logical response to my post. I'm obviously talking about teams that can't turn a profit because they're in a market too small to support a viable payroll and whose fans stop caring about a team who can't compete due to their payroll issues. I don't think that would ever have applied to the Red Sox.

Fewer teams is a problem. Where those teams are located is up for debate, sure, but the last thing you want is a front office doing high fives because they put the A's out of business. That's very bad for the sport.

I would like a balanced schedule too, but half the reason we want a balanced schedule is because we play in a division that's absurdly competitive, mostly because there's a team with a $200 million payroll in it. A balanced schedule forces the rest of the AL to compete with that team. If that's the way we look at it, though, what's wrong with just saying one team is spending too much money, and fixing it? Isn't that a lot easier?

Baseball doesn't really need a salary cap if it's only about one team, it needs a commissioner with the balls to lay out the situation clearly for the Steinbrenners so they curb their spending. MLB doesn't have a commissioner with balls, though, so every day that passes we get a day closer to an inevitable cap, because as the situation continues to stay the same, more and more owners jump on board with the idea. Wouldn't a stronger commissioner have been able to communicate that to the Steinbrenners?

Ironically, Selig wants slotting, he wants an international draft, he's all for competitive balance, as long as it exists in the PCL and International League, I guess.

[trekfan55]

Few things:

1. The NFL has an entirely different structure in slaries because of the cap that would not be that easy to adapt in MLB. For one, contracts are not guranteed, which as a consequence also means that players will sometimes hold out for more money before starting a season (just imagine Manny suddenly refusing to play unless his slary was raised). As a matter of fact, the NFL is sort of designed so that no team can build a dynasty, since the cap will sometimes prevent a team from signing any impact players regardless of their budget (the sigining bonuses of released or retired players get "accelerated" and counted in one year).

2. I agree that a salry floor will not exactly work. I mean, if they force the Marlins to spend 15MM more on players, does that really improve their franchise? The problem is that the Marlins, et al are SO CHEAP that they will trade players even before they hit FA so their window to really be competitive is extremely small.

3. All the talk about parity in baseball is not really accurate. Can anyone remember an AL post season that did not include the Angels, Yankees, or Red Sox? Since 2001 all 3 have made the playoffs 5 times (and in 3 of those 5 the 4th team was the Twins). Adiitionally 2 of those 3 teams made it twice, leaving just 2 seasons where only one of these 3 teams mad ethe playoffs. It just has been a case where the playoffs are a different animal than the regular season and the "anything can happen in the playoffs" mantra.

3.

5.Lax-er free-agency rules. The more free agents there are, the higher the supply, the lower the cost. I heard an anecdote (true or not, I don't know) that some owner, during the Curt Flood case, said, "Let 'em all be free agents," or something to that effect.

That was Charley Finley but not during the Curt Flood case. Unfortunately for him, Flood lost his case when he sued to become a free agent (basically a suit against the reserve clause). Marvin Miller actually advised 2 players (their names elude me) to play without a contract and when they tried to become free agents and MLB tried to prevent them an arbitration panel (another victory Miller got for the players) was called, which correctly interpreted the reserve clause from holding the rioghts to any player who refuses to sign a contract for only the subsequent year. When the owners met to arrange the FA system Finley simply said "Make them all free agents, every year" Owners refused the idea because they wanted control, and Miller did not want it because he knew that high demand would create better salaries, and that meant fewer free agents each year. Miller would have a tough time explaining to players why they should have rejected this, but he never had to. (from the boof of Baseball Blunders)

Edited by trekfan55, 15 October 2009 - 07:12 PM.