Why a salary cap?

[alw80]

They can refuse a cap if they want to. And I can refuse to watch baseball because it's boring as [shirt] watching 4 teams contend every year.

Thats every sport though.

Not necessarily. Florida and Tampa were really bad for a long time. Same with Edmonton. Seattle and New England were in the super bowl. I don't pay attention to NBA but I know that the teams that are good now weren't good 5 years ago.

Still, in every sport theres like 4 teams who can win.

At least there is a rotation of those 4 teams vs the Dodgers and Yankees every year

Yea, besides the Patriots, Chiefs, Warriors, Panthers...

Well the Patriots and chiefs drafted probably the best 2 qbs in NFL history. The warriors drafted arguably the best shooter in NBA history. I'm not sure if they are even any good anymore. The Panthers were the laughing stock of the league for 20 years before they built a solid team through the draft, free agency and trades. They've been good for like 3 years.

The point is a cap doesn't prevent dynasties or teams who win multiple championships in a short amount of time. Baseball has actually had more unique winners than football over the last 10 years. There has been a severe overreaction to the Dodgers. Baseball is fine, they just need someone who is better at promoting the game because Manfred is terrible at it.

I don't want to prevent dynasties. I don't want players getting paid half a billion dollars to play a game.

And this is the real reason people want a cap, thanks for being honest at least. But why is it ok for an owner to get all that money? Salaries in sports are insane but the money is there and the players deserve their fair share. Why does that bother you so much?

[ramfandan]

They can refuse a cap if they want to. And I can refuse to watch baseball because it's boring as [shirt] watching 4 teams contend every year.

Thats every sport though.

Not necessarily. Florida and Tampa were really bad for a long time. Same with Edmonton. Seattle and New England were in the super bowl. I don't pay attention to NBA but I know that the teams that are good now weren't good 5 years ago.

Still, in every sport theres like 4 teams who can win.

At least there is a rotation of those 4 teams vs the Dodgers and Yankees every year

Yea, besides the Patriots, Chiefs, Warriors, Panthers...

Well the Patriots and chiefs drafted probably the best 2 qbs in NFL history. The warriors drafted arguably the best shooter in NBA history. I'm not sure if they are even any good anymore. The Panthers were the laughing stock of the league for 20 years before they built a solid team through the draft, free agency and trades. They've been good for like 3 years.

The point is a cap doesn't prevent dynasties or teams who win multiple championships in a short amount of time. Baseball has actually had more unique winners than football over the last 10 years. There has been a severe overreaction to the Dodgers. Baseball is fine, they just need someone who is better at promoting the game because Manfred is terrible at it.

I don't want to prevent dynasties. I don't want players getting paid half a billion dollars to play a game.

Well some owners don't share your view on pay as they offer the premier players hundreds of millions right now. Never saw anyone holding a gun to owners head to get those $$$.

[Youboughtit]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

3 of the last 30 were to a non top 10 payroll. The 2015 Royals and the 1997 and 2003 Marlins but 0 of the last 20. A top 10 payroll is currently $235677500 and going up 10% per season over last 10 years. Cardinals $68m.

How did you look that up. I’m not disputing it. I want to know how.

Google WS winner payroll rank by year and use AI. I did it 2 years ago manually one year at a time. Before the last 30 year it was 1 every 10 years a low payroll was winning.

[Punkk6]

Along with a hard cap this deferred money mumbo jumbo also needs to go away

[CCard]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Unless something radical happens I doubt that MLB players will agree to a salary cap. Why would they? It limits there possible income. More than likely this problem will have to be addressed on the owner side. The billionaire boys club will have to agree to rules that limit their spending ability. You can't have a league if a majority of teams won't play. As for different teams winning, you might be right about repeat winners but it's almost always a handful of big spending teams in play for the WS. As for Super Bowl teams, there's a lot of luck with injuries among other things like terrible officiating and such. Plus they have a salary cap which helps keep them on a more level playing field.

“Rules limiting their spending ability” but no salary cap, can you expand on what you mean? I support a cap and floor but interested in other options.

If no cap then they'll have to agree with MLB rules or whatever covenant they make that they won't exceed more than X amount of dollars. So basically an owner self imposed salary cap.

That would be collusion.

Yes it would. And it happens all the time. Especially in the business world. Extremely hard to prove.

The MLBPA has already successfully proven owner collusion in the 1980s and to a lesser extent in the 2000s.

Which proves that owners are not above colluding and are willing to try it again most likely. They probably won't go exactly the same route that cost them before, but, as I said, they've proven before that they aren't above it. Whether they could do it is a different story I must admit, but as it says in the good book..."Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. " If you think collusion doesn't happen then you don't live in reality. They're just a whole lot more subtle about it.

[Cardinals1964]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Unless something radical happens I doubt that MLB players will agree to a salary cap. Why would they? It limits there possible income. More than likely this problem will have to be addressed on the owner side. The billionaire boys club will have to agree to rules that limit their spending ability. You can't have a league if a majority of teams won't play. As for different teams winning, you might be right about repeat winners but it's almost always a handful of big spending teams in play for the WS. As for Super Bowl teams, there's a lot of luck with injuries among other things like terrible officiating and such. Plus they have a salary cap which helps keep them on a more level playing field.

“Rules limiting their spending ability” but no salary cap, can you expand on what you mean? I support a cap and floor but interested in other options.

If no cap then they'll have to agree with MLB rules or whatever covenant they make that they won't exceed more than X amount of dollars. So basically an owner self imposed salary cap.

That would be collusion.

Yes it would. And it happens all the time. Especially in the business world. Extremely hard to prove.

The MLBPA has already successfully proven owner collusion in the 1980s and to a lesser extent in the 2000s.

Which proves that owners are not above colluding and are willing to try it again most likely. They probably won't go exactly the same route that cost them before, but, as I said, they've proven before that they aren't above it. Whether they could do it is a different story I must admit, but as it says in the good book..."Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. " If you think collusion doesn't happen then you don't live in reality. They're just a whole lot more subtle about it.

The first thing that comes to mind when I see $300 m, $500 million and $700 million dollar contracts is collusion. $30, $40, $50 and $60 million yearly contracts screams collusion.
All Marmols fault.

[Jeff Goldblum]

They can refuse a cap if they want to. And I can refuse to watch baseball because it's boring as [shirt] watching 4 teams contend every year.

Thats every sport though.

Not necessarily. Florida and Tampa were really bad for a long time. Same with Edmonton. Seattle and New England were in the super bowl. I don't pay attention to NBA but I know that the teams that are good now weren't good 5 years ago.

Still, in every sport theres like 4 teams who can win.

At least there is a rotation of those 4 teams vs the Dodgers and Yankees every year

Yea, besides the Patriots, Chiefs, Warriors, Panthers...

Well the Patriots and chiefs drafted probably the best 2 qbs in NFL history. The warriors drafted arguably the best shooter in NBA history. I'm not sure if they are even any good anymore. The Panthers were the laughing stock of the league for 20 years before they built a solid team through the draft, free agency and trades. They've been good for like 3 years.

The point is a cap doesn't prevent dynasties or teams who win multiple championships in a short amount of time. Baseball has actually had more unique winners than football over the last 10 years. There has been a severe overreaction to the Dodgers. Baseball is fine, they just need someone who is better at promoting the game because Manfred is terrible at it.

I don't want to prevent dynasties. I don't want players getting paid half a billion dollars to play a game.

And this is the real reason people want a cap, thanks for being honest at least. But why is it ok for an owner to get all that money? Salaries in sports are insane but the money is there and the players deserve their fair share. Why does that bother you so much?

How is the money there? Because they charge absurd prices.

[Jeff Goldblum]

They can refuse a cap if they want to. And I can refuse to watch baseball because it's boring as [shirt] watching 4 teams contend every year.

Thats every sport though.

Not necessarily. Florida and Tampa were really bad for a long time. Same with Edmonton. Seattle and New England were in the super bowl. I don't pay attention to NBA but I know that the teams that are good now weren't good 5 years ago.

Still, in every sport theres like 4 teams who can win.

At least there is a rotation of those 4 teams vs the Dodgers and Yankees every year

Yea, besides the Patriots, Chiefs, Warriors, Panthers...

Well the Patriots and chiefs drafted probably the best 2 qbs in NFL history. The warriors drafted arguably the best shooter in NBA history. I'm not sure if they are even any good anymore. The Panthers were the laughing stock of the league for 20 years before they built a solid team through the draft, free agency and trades. They've been good for like 3 years.

The point is a cap doesn't prevent dynasties or teams who win multiple championships in a short amount of time. Baseball has actually had more unique winners than football over the last 10 years. There has been a severe overreaction to the Dodgers. Baseball is fine, they just need someone who is better at promoting the game because Manfred is terrible at it.

I don't want to prevent dynasties. I don't want players getting paid half a billion dollars to play a game.

Well some owners don't share your view on pay as they offer the premier players hundreds of millions right now. Never saw anyone holding a gun to owners head to get those $$$.

Fine. And like I said at the beginning. I won't watch then.

[CardsBest]

Because the owners (most of them anyway) should want to get out in front of where MLB appears to be headed - greater and greater monetary polarization between the few "haves" and the many "have nots."

And the owners should be giving up a salary floor - forcing about 10 teams to spend more than they are now - and a guarantee to MLBPA that total player salary ($5.28 billion in 2025, per Cot's) will rise by X% per year over the years of the next CBA. They should also be finding a way to route more of that money to productive, younger players.

A guarantee of more total money going to the players is good for the players. But a salary cap/floor system should mean:

(1) the star and superstar players - even when they reach FA - should be distributed more evenly about the league and
(2) some flattening of the overall player salaries where the superstars aren't guaranteed of making 50x or 60x what productive, young players are paid.

+1

[BrockFloodMaris]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Competitive parity. Look at all the NFL teams that get much worse from year to year, and all the NFL teams that get a lot better from year to year. Caps create the opportunity for all teams to win. This attracts more fans to those teams in small markets, who would otherwise never have a chance.

Baseball isn't the NFL and will never be the NFL.

No it is not. No one said that they are the same. The example of competitive parity is transferable. It’s math. We will need a salary floor to go along with the cap.

Baseball already has more parity than the NFL. The NFL has a cap and you still had the Patriots dynasty and the Chiefs dynasty. The Dodgers also draft and develop better than everyone else too, do we need to make new rules to prevent teams from doing that as well? Stop defending sh*tty owners.

Competitive parity would create a system whereby the reds and pirates had as much chance as any team to win the NLC. Please explain to me how we already have parity in MLB?

They could do that now if their owners gave a sh*t. Giving them more money they're going to pocket isn't going to change anything.

You must have missed the part where I said that a salary floor is also needed.

You guys act like a floor is some magic button that fixes everything.

Why the resistance to a system that comes straight off an Excel spreadsheet? A salary/floor system is not some mysterious voodoo witchcraft sorcery. It’s math.

It also doesn't really fix anything.

Sure it does. It mostly levels the MLB payrolls of all the 30 teams.