Hotspotoutdoors

Sports: Why Major League Baseball Needs a Salary Cap
Posted October 6, 2009 11:52 AM


MLB needs Salary Cap for Good of Game
Major League Baseball appears to have lost its fan appeal. Ticket sales are in the toilet for 2009 and the 2008 World Series saw some of the worst Neilsen ratings in almost a decade.

The 2009 MLB post season is set. What do these franchises have in common? Except for the Rockies and Twins, they all have the biggest markets and the heftiest player payrolls in the game. This wouldn't be a problem if '09 was unusual, but these expensive teams usually finish the season with a playoff spot. Last year was the first time the Yankees didn't make the post-season under the new revenue system. What is causing a lull in the popularity and TV viewer-ship of America's pastime? It boils down to a lack of competitive parity and a short post-season.

Unlike the MLB system, the NFL institutes a 'hard' salary cap. This forces franchises to stay beneath a predetermined maximum. The cap ensures talent stays relatively uniform across NFL teams regardless of their market size or a team's past success. So far, the NFL's system appears to be working.

The MLB's attempt at creating similar equity has been to institute a luxury tax and revenue sharing system. Baseball's luxury tax rules are so relaxed that deep pocketed Steinbrenner has been fined only twice since it was instituted in 2002. The MLB revenue sharing, where, according to Neil DeMause "every team in the league gets to keep about 60 cents on every new dollar earned" doesn't provide an equal playing field for wins and losses as much as it ensures an equal revenue stream for a majority of owners.

An overly relaxed luxury tax allows players' salaries to stay high - so players like it. Owners see a similar gain in revenue sharing because it lowers their investment risk.

We all know how much revenue a successful post-season provides. Since so few MLB teams get a shot at the playoffs, few clubs get a post-season revenue boost.

With the same collection of franchises winning year after year - teams with the largest salaries become the same teams to consistently make the playoffs. If you're not in this cycle, you have to create your own magic.

By administering policies that serve owners and players, Major League Baseball creates an ideal environment for high-paying franchises to dominate. The majority of fans are excluded, and eventually these fans lose interest and shift their focus to sporting events with more exciting races.

More players and owners would benefit in the long term from a league wide salary cap because it would mean closer post-season races. Closer playoff races would mean more fans for baseball.

A salary cap would give more teams a chance to make the MLB post-season. More playoff diversity would allow new markets to flourish, in turn opening up the game to a wider audience. This would benefit the brand of baseball, and we all know the brand of baseball is in desperate need of a makeover.

Here is another view that I found posted on WikiAnswers.


Q: Should baseball have a salary cap?

Answer
Absolutely not. A salary cap is communist.

The "stated" benefit for a salary cap is that it distributes the talent more evenly across the league, and thereby prevents one team winning the championship over and over. But it doesn't work that way. The NFL has a salary cap, and the Patriots have dominated for the last few years. The NBA had a salary cap while the Bulls were a dynasty.

MLB has NO salary cap, but there is no one dominant team. In the last 6 seasons, 6 different teams (Cardinals, White Sox, Red Sox, Marlins, Angels, and Diamondbacks) have won the World Series. Of these 6 teams, 2 of them (Marlins and Diamondbacks) did not even exist 11 years before their championship. Two teams (Angels and Diamondbacks) had NEVER won a World Series, or even a League championship. Two teams (White Sox and Red Sox) had not won a World Series in over 85 years. Only 1 teams (Marlins) had one a World Series at any time in the last 20 years. Only one team (Cardinals) even played in the World Series more than once during those 6 years.

In addition, there were 4 other teams that appeared in, but did not win, a World Series during those 6 years - the Tigers, Astros, Yankees, and Giants. Only the Yankees appeared more than once, losing both times. The Tigers hadn't played in a World Series in 22 years. The Astros had NEVER played in the World Series in their 43-year history. The Giants hadn't won a World Series in 49 years and hadn't played in one in 13 years.

Among those teams who won the World Series in the last 6 years, the average length of time since their last World Series win is 41.5 years. This number is artificially low because, for the Angels and Diamondbacks, who had their FIRST World Series win during this time, I cannot use more than 41 and 4 years, respectively, since that is the length of time they had been in existence. If you throw those two teams out, the average span is 51 years. That is impressive, because there are only 30 teams in MLB. This means that, ON AVERAGE, a team will win the World Series every 30 years.

The average number of previous World Series wins among these 6 teams is 3.3. Compared to an average of 3.1 for ALL major league teams through the 2000 season. But that average is based on the current 30 teams. Since the World Series began in 1909, the number of teams in MLB has, for the most part, been far less than 30. I'm guessing it averages about 25, meaning that the adjusted average among all teams is 3.7 World Series wins. And the last 6 World Series Champions averaged just 3.3 previous wins.

Compute some of these numbers for the last 6 Super Bowl or NBA champions. You will see that "dyanasties" are a much bigger problem in these sports, even though they have salary caps and baseball does not.

By the way, baseball does have a "luxury tax", which is kinda sorta similar to a salary cap. MLB sets a "maximum" total salary for the teams, but the teams don't HAVE to abide by that maximum. If they exceed it, however, they have to pay a percentage of the amount by which they exceed the maximum. I don't really like this, but it's a whole lot better than the salary cap.

Absolutely, When one team can spend more on 1 player than some teams can spend in total theres going to be issues. Anyone who can say with a straight face that it wont have an effect is one heck of a liar. Baseballs is one sport I wont watch until they get something lined up to ensure a level field when it comes to salary caps.

Should Baseball Have a Salary Cap?
by T.O. Whenham - 03/26/2008


It's a debate that won't go away. Should baseball have a salary cap? In a word, no. You want more than that? Fine, here are four reasons:

Payroll doesn't guarantee success - The argument that money buys success is not a particularly good one. Sure, some teams with big payrolls do well - the Yankees put together a good run, and Boston is winning with relative ease these days. A big payroll can be as much of an anchor as a boost, though. Just look at the teams with big payrolls and little to show for it - the Yankees haven't exactly been tearing it up for a while, and the trophy cases of the Mets, Dodgers and many others are decidedly empty. On the other hand, teams like Colorado last year and Florida a couple of times have shown that teams without massive payrolls or a roster loaded with superstars can still succeed.

Expensive players are not necessarily good players - Too often, players are rewarded with huge contracts at or past their peaks, not while they are at their peak productivity. In other words, sometimes a team pays for what a player has done, not what he will do. I could fill this page and nine others with the names of guys who are making way, way more money that they are worth. Carl Pavano is a classic example. It's rarely the small market teams that are overpaying for this talent. Often times, it is the small market teams that get the production out of the players while they are still young, and the bigger market teams that overpay for the player when he becomes a free agent. Prince Fielder, Jonathan Papelbon - the list goes on and on of very good, valuable young players who are all-stars while earning less than a million dollars a year.

Inspires creativity - Oakland, Florida, Arizona and Minnesota are all good examples of teams that have had to make up for their lack of a massive payroll by being more creative and by paying better attention to their young talent. The Yankees, Mets or Red Sox trade away their youngsters whenever there is a veteran that they want to acquire. The smaller teams benefit from those acquisitions and they succeed by bringing up talent - Oakland and Minnesota have both created all-stars in several positions including pitchers, most notably, and Florida has provided young talent at the core of several contenders now. These teams succeed by being creative, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it makes it more interesting in a lot of ways.

A salary cap doesn't necessarily work - The NBA has a fairly rigid salary cap and it isn't exactly the model of competition. Atlanta, the Clippers, Memphis and others are lousy now, have been lousy for a while, and will continue to be lousy for a while longer. On the other hand, the Lakers, the Suns, the Spurs, The Pistons and others have been competitive for a long time, and their ability to compete hasn't been hampered at all by the salary cap. The salary cap doesn't ensure equal footing because teams are affected by the quality of their management. If you want baseball to be more competitive you should push for IQ tests for general managers, not for a salary cap.

If $ doesn't mean success, then why have the Yankees appeared in more than 1/3rd of every world series game played?

Not that I am arguing in favor of not having a salary cap in baseball because I think there should be, but........I think the author of that article may have a valid point DTRO.

The two teams with the highest team salary besides the Yankees are the Mets and Cubs. They have only won 2 world series each and the Cubs havn't won it since 1908 or something like that.

So it still goes to show that a team still has to make the right personel moves and just because you throw a lot of money at players does not mean that they will perform at a high enough level to win a World Series. Also proves that the Yankees have made the right moves with the money that they have spent compared to other higher salary teams in the league.

I'm in favor of having a salary cap and agree money spent does not translate into guaranteed success and most often curtails teams that spend insane money trying to win!

Either way I'm not worried teams like the Twins and other less spending teams like the Ray's who were within an eyelash of winning the World series last year will always have a chance....Why?...because it's baseball and it's the toughest sport to play, manage and umpire. Anything can and will happen in Baseball!
It's a great game and IMO the salary cap has nothing to do with the diminished ratings like most sports are experiencing these days!

Go Phillies!

I have said it before on here, MLB should have implemented one after the 94 season was cut short. It is too late now. The only alternative is set a date WAY ahead in the future and all contracts must be done before that season then start a cap then. For example, all existing contracts are done before the 2020 season, make that the first year with a cap. If a players contract is up 2018, then he signs a one year deal to get him to the cap season. Just like the NFL, they will get around caps by giving huge signing bonuses

and how many have they won!

26 World Championship teams
39 American League pennant winners
since 1921

I am in favor of a salary cap, and more so because the amount the players are getting paid, which is directly connected to the cost of going to a game. I have a family of 5, and I love baseball, and my kids like going to games, but the cost to take a family of 5 to a game every now and then is getting out of hand. I remember being able to buy tickets for 5 for under $20, now it cost that per ticket. I used to go to several games a year, now I am lucky to make a couple, and with the cost of the tickets for the new stadium, I will be lucky to go to 1 a year.

If prices continue to climb, in which they will with no salary cap, I will just stop going all together, and I am sure I wont be the only one.

But as long as the big market teams can continue to sell out all of their games, they can keep raising prices every year, and continue to pay higher salaries, which will only hurt the small market teams that much more.

The Yankees have won those 29 or whatever, but since salaries have become an issue- 3 or 4. HOWEVER- they do appear in the playoffs almost every year, and THAT is getting old, and attributed to their huge salaries.

Baseball needs some sort of cap. Its ridiculous that a team like the yankees is paying out over 200 million a year when they are playing team that are paying 25 million a year. Its a real shame for small market teams. They get good draft picks, invest money and time into them to develop, and then when they are a star they cant afford to keep them anymore.

Yes.

Go Phillies.

That wasn't the point.

Wouldn't you like to see the Twins in on 1/3 of every WS game played?

Of course money won't buy you a WS ring, but it will buy you the best players, and wouldn't you love to see a Twins team composed of all the players they've lost to Free Agency because they couldn't afford to keep them.

Just think of the lineup.....

oh and I bet people will think differently when Mauer is in pinstripes.

Just my thought Dtro. So many believe that Mauer will never leave but when George flashes that huge contract in front of him, he may be gone.

Not only the huge contract but also the very real possibility of winning a world series ring or 2.

He knows that even if the Twins were to sign him to a lucrative contract, they would never be able to add any talent to the team and may possibly LOSE talent because of the signing.

But then wouldn't everyone have to hate the Twins like they do the Yankees?

So where do you set the cap? You've got teams over $200 million in payroll, and teams around $50 million. So, you set the cap at, say, $110 or $120 million, you have teams hitting the cap every year and then do you still have teams around $50 million? If you set a cap, then also set a salary floor (hey...the goal is to make teams competitive, right? and this would be the only way that the players union would even have a thought of going for it). Set the cap at $125 million or so, and then set a salary floor at, say, $70 or $75 million. Make the Pirates and Royals get their salaries up there.

Small market teams – if they are out of contention - can gain a lot by trading high-salary players to contending teams for good, young prospects. There would need to be some mechanism within a salary cap that would allow this to happen…not allowing it would hurt the small market teams.

So, you also have to make allowances for trades through the season. Those salary cap and floor numbers would be the opening day roster salary cap and floor...do you allow teams to go above and below with trades during the season?

Should a low-revenue team be allowed to trade away a high salary player during the season, even if it brings their total salary below the designated salary floor? Why not, as it will only force the team to go out and spend money in the next off season? And the team that acquires the high salary player may the have trouble getting back under the cap…they will not have as much money to spend the next off season. In this scenario, the wealthy team might end up in a position where they are not able to spend as much money in the next off season.

Sorry. Now I'm rambling a bit...just thinking this through a bit...

Until they have one(never) why can you fault the teams listed above for trying to win a championship every year. I have no sympathy for our twins or any other club in mlb. You own a mlb team to win a title if not sell it!

I wonder how it can actually work with such a huge discrepancy in current payrolls.

If you set the cap at $125 million or something like that you have to go tell team like the Yankees that you need to drop $75-100 million in salary by next season. That means they would be cutting some big name talent most likely, or a lot of mid level talent.

I just don't see the big market teams that seem to run the show ever letting that happen. You would probably need to set the cap higher then the current highest payroll to make it even remotely possible but then you'd still have the discrepancy in payrolls. Some teams hitting the $200 million cap and other at $50 million still, what would you have gained?

You could put in a minimum salary cap as well but that's a tricky business. That would essentially be cutting into a teams profit. Some teams can't sell tickets to save their life so how are they going to react knowing that now they are required to spend more money in turn reducing the profits they make. Potentially some owners may decide enough is enough and opt to get rid of the team all together. After all they are in it to make money winning a title is just a bonus for most of them.

I just don't see this ever happening, the big market teams just have to much power over how things are done and they aren't going to let it happen.

If something doesn't happen soon, those numbers will only grow further apart, and the small market teams will be dropping like flies anyway.

It's "salary cap" not going to happen and we'll` "twins" have to settle on playing and running our team the way it is/was meant to be...

and settle for divison champions

Well, it looks like George's big money will buy another championship. A good reason to have caps.