Question #143: Should there be a salary cap in baseball?
-
- January
- 22
In a great post on his always-excellent Yankees blog, Pete Abraham breaks down the payroll for the 2009 Yankees, shedding a little light on the Yankees continued claims that they will have reduced their total salaries from last season. As PeteAbe points out, if they do, it certainly won’t be by much – including signing bonuses, they’ll be right around $200 million again.
By contrast, the Rays – who won the AL East a year ago and went to the World Series – will probably be closer to $60 million (if that) this season. The Marlins – who absolutely didn’t go to the World Series and only succeeded in putting the finishing touches on another Mets collapse (again) – will be closer to $30 million.
These numbers, as always, will be cause for a segment of the sports world to shriek loudly. Already, the Brewers owner, Mark Attanasio, has been quoted as saying the sport needs a salary cap.
So here’s the question: Does it?
To be honest, my biggest hesitation in saying that Attanasio is crazy is that it might make me look like I endorse the rantings of Yankees president Randy Levine, who has a little bit too much self-righteousness for a guy that’s been on George Steinbrenner’s coattails for this long.
But the truth is that – as was readily (and wonderfully) apparent on Tuesday – we live in America. And in America, free markets are better than restricted markets. If you can make enough money to support a $200 million payroll, then I have a hard time saying you shouldn’t be allowed to spend what you want. The MLB players’ union is the strongest in all of sports and unrestricted free agency is one of the main reasons that baseball has become a 12-months-a-year game. It’s one of the main reasons its popularity is soaring.
Having a salary cap changes all that. As much as I have disagreed with certain decisions Bud Selig has made, I think the current luxury tax is a reasonable compromise. It forces the big spenders to be absolutely sure they want to spend because they have to pay extra on top, in addition to the revenue sharing they also must be a part of. To me, that’s good enough. If a team – like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets or anyone else – wants to deal with the consequences of their largesse, I say let ‘em. It’s the American way.
9: 50 a.m., Josh Thomson says:
Since MLB added the current luxury-tax system to its collective bargaining agreement, the sport has undergone a competitive renaissance. In the last six seasons there have been five World Series champs and 22 of the 30 teams have made at least one postseason. Even the Tigers, who kinda normally stink.
OK, I admit this much: The numbers impressed me. It’s certainly an improvement over the Yankee-dominated late 1990s. But am I crazy or is fair, honest competition the point of sport?
Really, am I missing something?
Look, baseball’s great here. New Yorkers don’t do high school or college sports. This isn’t Texas. We do the pros, the best of the best, and we do them big, or do you not remember when A-Rod’s sunbathing became a topic of conversation.
So, yeah, it’s a healthy, thriving game in New York. It’s great in Boston, Chicago and L.A., too, but is the game flourishing in Pittsburgh or in Miami? How ‘bout San Diego, where five years after opening a new stadium the front office is fielding offers for Jake Peavy? Should any pro baseball team worth its salt contemplate dealing a 27-year-old ace with a reasonable contract? The moment Peavy leaves town they’ll essentially begin searching for him all over again.
I don’t call for a hard-and-fast cap, a la the NHL. But does it benefit the game when every free-agent pitcher with a winning record and/or a shred of talent has the following suitors: the Yankees, the Red Sox, and (insert two or three other teams here)?
10:42 a.m., Sam says:
Josh, who does a terrific job covering everything from high schools to hockey for The Journal News, makes a fair point. It’s hard to think about the situations of cities outside of our own and – particularly if you’re a Yankees fan – organizations that we don’t follow closely. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
While I don’t think a salary cap is necessary, I do worry about how the incredibly-bad economy will affect baseball (and all sports). While some teams, like the Yankees and Mets (to a slightly lesser degree) are somewhat bullet-proof because of the revenue they will inherently receive from having new stadiums and massive fan bases, the reality is that smaller-market teams are losing out much of the local advertising and sponsorship money they’d normally be getting from businesses that are failing. To those teams, the allure of “investing in the team to try for a winner” isn’t necessarily as attractive, since in this economy there’s no guarantee that even making the World Series will result in a huge increase in outside dollars. Remember, all those companies that might have wanted to jump on board probably just had their advertising budgets slashed.
So the big concern I have is that the gap between the high and low in MLB will be further exacerbated. While that isn’t enough to make me believe there should be a salary cap, I do think it’s a reality that we need to face. And, if nothing else, it certainly gives Yankees haters (or Royals, Marlins and Twins fans) something more to shout about.
1:07 p.m., Josh Thomson says:
The worry, Sam, isn’t just the disparity found in the major-league free-agent market alone. If that were the lone root of competitive imbalance between the haves and the have-nots, the Pittsburghs, Kansas Cities and Cincies could focus their efforts on the draft, but even the recruitment and selection of amateurs is an arms race…and arms race the have-nots are losing.
Take Rick Porcello, the hard-chucking righty from northern Jersey. He had top-five or top-10 talent heading into the 2007 draft yet fears about the money he would demand (yes, folks, Scott Boras was involved) scared the poorer teams away. They simply couldn’t afford to draft an 18-year-old that had never played a college game, much less a pro game. So Detroit got him 27th overall because it could pay him what was then the largest contract ever given to a draft pick. Oh, that’s all. So now Porcello is considered one of, if not the, best pitching prospects in baseball. Everyone knew he had that ability, but many couldn’t afford to pay for it.
I understand Sam’s idea that this is America – that free-market economics has defined our nation through its forever evolving history, etc., but the game of baseball has an inherent interest in maintaining all 30 of its businesses, not in seeing them go belly-up. Were teams allowed to go bankrupt, what would happen to players, stadiums, schedules, and the like? Just think about the disaster that would ensue if the Marlins ran out of money.
Make the cap $125 million. Heck, $150 mil even. Just make it so a team willing to spend $75-80 million — a Toronto — can have hope.
2:42 p.m., Sam says:
First of all, let me say to anyone that’s just stumbling on to this post that you should absolutely check out the comments here. Lots and lots of good opinions there—- kudos to everyone for making well-reasoned arguments. Nothing like money and baseball to spark a debate.
Anyway, Josh, I see your point – the notion that teams can simply improve through the draft isn’t totally fair and probably won’t ever be until Scott Boras is no longer working in this game. But to me, that’s just one of the side effects that comes with a free-market system.
Here’s another downside to a salary cap that we haven’t yet touched on: The disappearance of trades.
One of the absolute best parts of baseball’s season is July, when the trade season is in full swing. While I absolutely hated that time as a beat writer (I literally didn’t turn my phone off for a month), it’s one of the things that make the sport great. No other league can offer the possibility of blockbusters like baseball does, and one of the reasons is the lack of a cap.
Trades in the NFL hardly ever happen and those in the NBA (or NHL) have to structured so carefully with respect to cap space that they’re tough to pull off, too. If MLB added a cap, it would put a crimp in the wild rumor mill that helps everyone – even those teams that are long since out of the pennant race – get excited in summer.
Wouldn’t you miss that? I know I would.
3:47 p.m., Josh Thomson says:
Would I miss it, yes. Would July become a dead season? No. It would change. It would evolve. But the trade deadline would still be a busy season.
The question then would be how to reconcile the vast amount of playing movement and midseason payroll restructuring with a salary cap — and, yes, that means a cap with a floor and a ceiling. I believe that would stand as the most complicated part about installing a cap. Why couldn’t a team just north of the, say, $70-million cap floor, dump expensive players if it was already out of the race? Obviously, those also-rans would need the opportunity to dip below the floor, but should teams already spending at the max be allow to pass it? I say no. Just like in the offseason, it gives the superpowers an unfair advantage. How often must we watch big-market teams pay the final half of a monster contract on the off-chance a player turns it around for two months and wins them a pennant? Or do you not think the Manny market would’ve expanded if more teams could afford him?
Here’s what I propose:
Make the cap somewhere between $125-150 million.
Make the floor 50 percent of the ceiling, i.e. between $62.5-75 million.
Require teams to meet the number (floor or ceiling) by opening day.
Implement the slot system as rule for the draft (this, by the way, would help everyone).
The two concerns I see that would need to be met are:
1. How much beneath the salary cap floor could a team move at the trade deadline (10 percent, 20 percent, etc.) and when would it be able to do so (after June 1 seems likely to me)?
2. How would you alter the current revenue-sharing system?
I think those would be the two remaining issues under a salary cap. The first is easier to solve, the second not so much. What do you think?
Regardless, despite this debate and the flow of opinions, I fear baseball has no shot at accomplishing a cap in the near future. The union would never allow it unless the players were assured the same amount of revenue they earn now, as many of you had pointed out. Even if the sport instituted a number the way the NHL has, I don’t believe the union would accept such a limitation. Do you?
It has never given much value to the health of the game. (See: steroids)
MLB teams have the money, even the smaller markets. They choose not to out it back into their teams. If a salary cap was put in place, a salary floor would be established as well and would make the whiners like the Orioles, Brewers and Royals spend MORE money than they already are. Besides all a salary cap does is change the location of the money flow. Without a salary cap the revenue goes to the players. With the cap the revenue stream goes to the owners… I don’t know about you, but I’d rather see the players get the money. I’m there to see them, not Peter Angelos or Mark Attanasio.
I would say, the real change in putting a salary cap would be that it would also include a minimum salary level that teams would have to pay.
You can’t have limitations on one end while none on the other.
Salary caps, luxury tax, they all are things that this Obama administration may love, but it traditionally is anti-American.
Another thought. Why not just make it a socialistic system all together, where every player, regardless of talent, gets paid the same. Then the whining would stop and the sport would be dead, but hey, it keeps an even playing field. We should also do away with keeping score. Keeping stats seems unfair to those players who just can’t play up to the highest level, so they should go too.
Its all absurd.
The Rays invested a bit in their team lately, and it paid off. That is why they got as far as they did… along with being bottom feeders for so long and getting good draft picks.
If other teams feel the Yankees have an unfair advantage, so what? They look to cut payroll, even though their club makes them big money. How about they invest as much as the Yankees have as a percentage of their income? Ha, wealthy owners actually spending more to be competative is only the Yankee way, the others would rather whine and cry. Sounds like European crap to me.
The Red Sox and the Yankees do more than spend. They put on a spectacular and theatrical show. There is no reason, other than lack of instinct and ability that other management teams don’t succeed. In fact, many others do succees. Cubs, Mets, Phillies, White Sox, Mariners (at one time) Dodgers, Angels. Why should poorly run organizations, be cut any slack. The fault and problem is not systemic, but personal.
Barry
Yes baseball needs a salary cap and here is why. If we want to look at Major League Baseball as a competitive sport then let’s truly make it that. I look beyond the “mere” economic implications down to the layer of men going out there day after day and trying to give it their very best, when some have that 10th player working for them every single day, and some are lucky to get a 10th fan into the stands. I bleed pinstripes but often with some guilt. I have great ambivalence because I burst with pride to be a fan of the greatest team in the history of organized sports but also ache for the teams who go into the season year after year with little to no hope of doing much of anything save a miracle here or there.
Yes, we can regale each other with stories about how the teams with the highest payrolls weren’t always the team who ended up with the prize. But we can also see that more often than not those teams were in the hunt. If a salary cap would mean that some of the top players would be distributed more evenly, then I am all for a salary cap. I don’t know the financial status of every teams’ ownership but I think I can safely say that not every team in Major League Baseball is rolling in dough nor may have the opportunity to reach that point. Let’s even the playing field and then enjoy Yankee victories even more. I know I would.
If you have a salary cap you need a floor. So all those owners whining about what the Yankees spend will actually have to spend the money they receive from the Yankees instead of putting it in their pocket.
If you have a cap, you need to cap players salaries. You can’t just cap what a team can spend, and not cap what a player can make.
Also those owners could say good-bye to revenue sharing and luxury tax.
You will also see teams fold cause they won’t be able to afford to increase their payroll.
And instead of pointing fingers at what the Yankees spend, why not point fingers at what other owners don’t spend?!
Yeah basketball is really competitive with their cap. Just one example of a cap not working.
IF I have to pay the prices I do to sit at YS, I expect a great product to be put on the field.
Because it may not work in basketball doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a built-in fault of the entity called “salary cap.” If I have to pay high prices to sit at Yankee Stadium, then I expect a team of guys with a lot of heart to show up and I will root my brains out for them – because I’m a fan and not a convenient fan.
I want every team in the league to have that same “competitive advantage” – fans showing up to see them play. At least part of that may come from teams being more competitive, and part of that comes from teams having “the best players.”
Life is having bottom feeders, and that is what sports is too. You have your elite teams, you have your bottom feeders and you have your middle of the pack.
Jennifer,
I totally understand your thinking on the idea that high ticket prices should equal “great product” but the reality is that much of the time teams don’t deliver on that bargain—look at the Yankees of this year. Were they a “great product” in July, August and September? Same with the Mets in September or the SF Giants (who don’t exactly have cheap tickets) all season long?
Obviously attendance doesn’t suffer THAT much in the bigger cities, even if the team is as bad as the Giants. In the end, I agree with you and think there shouldn’t be a cap but not because fans DESERVE high-payroll/high-quality teams. They don’t. I just think a salary cap goes against the free market system that has helped make baseball so entertaining.
“Life is having bottom feeders, and that is what sports is too. You have your elite teams, you have your bottom feeders and you have your middle of the pack.”
jen, and to me the fairest way to have that shake out is to cap salary and let the cream rise to the top with everyone having a chance at getting a sip!
Interestingly enough, the free-market system has made baseball so entertaining for cities with top-notch players (a la those teams that can afford to pay for them – “Arod will definitely put fans in the seats!) not quite so entertaining for the teams that cannot.
While it might sound nice in theory, a salary cap is not economically feasible in MLB. Because when you have a cap, you need a floor, especially when these things are collectively bargained. Doing the rough math, the floor would have to be around 90 million or so, and that’s being conservative. And to be blunt, there are 5 or 6 teams at least that could not afford to sustain that number. And the only solution to that would be further increased revenue sharing like the NFL. Why would the big/slightly large market teams agree to that? That’s taking two things away from them.
Also, if you institute this policy with no revenue sharing, then you have an NBA-NFL situation where franchises are forced to relocate often, not to mention other staff and scouting cutbacks because of the high player payroll. Basically, if you look at the economics of current day baseball, a salary cap in MLB is virtually impossible to institute. The best thing for them to do is just continue to modify the current system as the times dictate. It’s worked so far (8 different champs in 9 years), why change it?
I really don’t think people understand what a salray cap is or accomplishes.
They see it as the way to level the playing field.
That is not what it does.
It simply caps owners expenses and thus enables them to make more profit. Ticket prices haven’t gone down in leagues with caps have they?
MLB revenues are at record levels, yet the percentage of revenue going to the players has fallen from around 60% in 2003 to about 52% last year. How much lower would it go with a cap?
The money is there to spend for those who want to. A salary cap acomplishes nothing but putting even more money in the owners pockets.
If they really want to level the playing field, increasing revenue sharing is how it should be done.
Great points, everyone. Carl, can you please explain how you came to see 90 million as the floor number? Just curious for the math behind it.
90 mill sounds a little high for the floor. The only numbers i have found say the 30 teams combined to make approx $6 billion, or about $200 mill per team if we average it evenly. a floor of 45% of revenues seems a little high…maybe that would be a good midpoint (which is what Baseball Prospectus brought up a few weeks ago for an article on SI.com), but your floor would probably be better set at closer to $80 mill with a cap closer to $110. BP’s numbers were a little lower then that, but not much….for those intereseted here is the link:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/01/15/bp.salarycap/index.html
I was using the 95 million as a rough number. The NFL uses 57.5% of revenues on their cap so I was figuring 45% as a low estimate and then I rounded it off.
I guess my point is when everyone talks about an MLB cap they use the NFL as a guideline, but it doesn’t really make sense. Even if the proposed floor was let’s say, 75-80 million that would still put a hurting on quite a few teams.
Totally fair point, Carl, and I came up with roughly the same thing. It’s especially interesting to note that Attanasio (the Brewers owner) was one of the owners calling for the cap and yet, if the floor was anything above 80 million or so, he wouldn’t be above it.
im in total agreement with you there! small market fans (and apparently small market owners) dont always recognise the repurcussions….in some ways im sure the stienbrenners would LOVE a salary cap…it would mean they would make a LOT more money then they are now…but as it stands they re-invest much of their revenue back into the team. im not sure exactly how much each team “earns” from revenue sharing, but something tells me no matter how much everyone is getting out of it, the clubs who ARE getting less then they are putting in wont be too anxious to put a whole lot more in to make up for teams who arent bringing in quite as much on their own….
gnome
I could be wrong but he could be using the same model as the nfl has, as far as figuring out the floor.
Sam- Do you have access to the Brewers owner, or know someone who could ask him what he would think about a floor?
maybe he is thinking about a system similar to the NFL, but i dont see that many teams willing to put MORE of their money into the pot for revenue sharing…especially with the perception that many owners arent willing to spend the money they already have on their team…why punish the teams who are spending the money they make?
i know the numbers will never be completely public or transparent, but but lets say for a second that the yankees make $375 mill in revenue….i would bet they spend 85-95% of that on the team. but the perception is small market clubs like Pitt and Milwaukee make $150 mill while only reinvesting 70-75% into their team pocketing the rest as profit….while they have every right to do that, it also should limit their rights to complain about the system. Plus, as was pointed out already, with parity like MLB seems to have, why change for the sake of change??
Actually, if salary cap were to be implemented, players would insist that all the revenue and all the related party transactions are reported (Yankees with YES, Cubs with ticket scalping and so on). Reported revenue without MLBAM was 6 billion, MLBAM was another 400 – 450 million, and I think that hidden revenue is at least another 10%, so full revenue for salary cap purposes would be closer to 7 billion. If you take 56% as players’ cut, low end of what other leagues receive, you get midpoint of 130 million per club. That would probably work as 145 mil cap and 115 mil floor.
Owners would never seriously push for salary cap, because:
1. There would be strike/lockout. All of them are earning too much to allow that.
2. Any reasonable cap would pay players much more than they are payed now, because in the last few years revenues have skyrocketed, while salaries rose more gradually.
3. They would have to report all the sweet related party transactions at the market value.
4. They would have to allow PA lawyers to go through their books.
And salary cap usually includes significant revenue sharing, to help teams meet salary floor. So owners who are already unhappy with the way some (Florida, Pittsburgh) are using revenue-sharing money would be furious.
Now, owners would love to lock players for 45% or 50% of the revenue, but union in baseball is the strongest, and there is no way they would get below market deal. And current market (NHL, NFL, NBA) is 56% – 59%. Historically leagues started pushing for salary cap and locked players out only when players’ cut passed 2/3 of reported revenues.
And let’s not forget that in the beginning and during the dynasty Yankees were near or at the top salary-wise, but they haven’t separated themselves form 5 – 6 clubs near the top, and another 5 – 6 clubs were quite close. They really separated themselves during 2002 and 2003 offseasons.
Bob…I agree about salary caps, but remember: This isn’t about increasing revenues, it’s about keeping the game healthy in every market. I think a problem poorer owners have isn’t a reluctance to spend money to make the playoffs. It’s a reluctance to spend money and finish 82-80. Look at Toronto, which has signed free agents (Burnett, B.J. Ryan, Vernon Wells) and developed young players (Alex Rios, Dustin McGowan) but has basically been kicking the tires on a third-place team.
Josh didn’t the Rays have hope? They made it to the playoffs. Yes the Yankees can cover up mistakes easily. But has spending what they’ve spent helped them over the last 8 years? They haven’t been to a WS since 2003, haven’t won since 2000. WHen they won the payroll wasn’t that much higher than other teams.
That should be made it to the WS.
Fans of other teams should place blame on their teams owners. Instead of reinvesting revenue back into the product onto the field they pocket it.
Poorer owners? There are a number of owners in MLB that are richer than George. Much richer.
“Make the cap $125 million. Heck, $150 mil even. Just make it so a team willing to spend $75-80 million — a Toronto — can have hope.”
WRONG
You still forgot to put in a salary floor. Make the floor 75% of the Cap. (85% in the NFL). Say the cap is 150Mil, the floor at 75% of that would be 112.5 The Marlins would go bankrupt! Even putting the floor at 50%, most teams still have to increase their payroll to just make it to that level. Salary Cap argument FAIL.
Here is an idea, why don’t you just put a cap that only applies to the Yankees? No one else has to follow it, only the Yankees. You know that is what everyone REALLY wants.
Tom Zig
:LOL: HOW TRUE!!
I support a salary cap for the draft. Why should all these prospects get millions of dollars, when they’ve never thrown a single pitch or stroked a single hit in professional ball? 18 year olds getting multi-million contracts who may or may not make it in pro ball? Doesn’t make sense. This would make the draft more competitive for small market teams.
first, i have to dispell a couple of things….the disappearance of trades is mostly due to so many teams still being in the hunt and not wanting to part with one of those pieces that could complete another team….not as much a money factor or a potential salary cap issue…
and with all due respect to the arguement about drafts…not every top draft pick works out, and not every top prospect was a high draft pick. but lets cite one, Keith Law just gave his top prospect lists: #1 Matt Weiters drafted in the 1st round for baltimore…smaller market club, limited payroll, yet they drafted and signed him. #2 David Price, we all know his story, and he was drafted and signed by the DEVIL rays (sorry i still refuse to call them the rays). #5 Travis Snider selected by Toronto in the first round and signed….
so its not just big market clubs who can afford to sign top prospects…and not everyone of those picks pans out…smart drafting will not be enhanced or diminished based on a salary cap.
“Just make it so a team willing to spend $75-80 million — a Toronto — can have hope”
a team doesnt have to spend even that much to have a chance…how much was Tampa’s payroll….its not how much you spend but how smart you spend….no salary cap can control THAT either…
“Just think about the disaster that would ensue if the Marlins ran out of money.”
I think what would happen is they would either get bought out or Relocate. Something they frankly should have done years ago.
Salary cap IMO, does not automatically induce parity. Bottom feeders will remain so even if the floor is $70-80 mil. You’re still talking the cheapest of the cheap regarding obtaining free agents. You think the Marlins with a salary floor in place will go out and spend big money on a free agent? Nope. Neither will any of the other teams who spend so little right now. Especially with the removal of the luxury tax and revenue sharing if a cap is in place. They will still float near the bottom.
The draft system is flawed because teams are allowed to pay overslot whenever possible – which is why teams like the Sox and Yanks (recently) can overpay for free agents and still get high value/ceiling draft picks because draftees like Portcello can say, I won’t sign unless I get $10 mil or I go to college or play elsewhere for a year. Unless teams are bound by the slot recommendations, parity will also take a hit here.
The cap will primarily allow owners to pocket profits. A better idea would be to force owners to spend the revenue sharing dollars on their team and forbid pocketing any of it unless they can prove without a doubt that their team is losing money hand over fist.
I have to take issue with Josh’s post from 1:07 PM regarding Rick Porcello. First, just because an owner says he can’t afford something, doesn’t mean it’s true. It could also mean he doesn’t feel like paying it.
I’m never sure why, but the baseball press always operates from a position of trusting ownership. Why is that? They’ve never proven themselves trustworthy. Their statements cannot be taken at face value. They must be reviewed and researched.
So let’s look at Rick Porcello. Josh says that he was universally viewed as on of the 5 most talented players in the draft. Detroit signed him to a 4 year deal for $7.29 million with 2 addition one year options, for a maximum potential $11.1 million. That’s under $2 million a year.
In my view, if you are a baseball owner and can’t afford that, than you don’t deserve your team. That is a ludicrously small investment for a top notch talent. If you’re keeping your big league payroll at $40 million and collecting $30 million in revenue sharing, the least you could do is be willing to spend $2 million a year on each of your top draft picks.
It’s ludicrous to claim that teams can’t afford draft picks. It’s not that they can’t afford it. It’s that they don’t want to pay. That’s what happens when you have:
a monopoly in your city with no chance for competition
a guaranteed subsidy check from revenue sharing.
Why bother attempting to field a good team if you can profit anyway for a much smaller investment?
noseeum…I understand your point that $11.1 mil for high-end talent is chump change, but you can’t compare an 18-year-old like Porcello to a big league free agent. First-round picks generally have a poor success rate. Many never make it to the bigs, much less develop into multimillion dollar players. Poor teams can’t afford to pay draft picks that much when they could pay someone with an equal chance of reaching the bigs half the money. That’s why Porcello, Luke Hochevar, J.D. Drew, etc. end up controlling who picks them.
Josh, I still disagree.
Basically what these owners are saying is, “I want to pay next to nothing for draft picks because who knows if they work out? I also want to keep all of my drafts picks who do work out under lock and key with artificially reduced salaries for the first six years they play in the majors. And further, I want there to be an overall salary cap because I want the salaries of players that REALLY work out (i.e. manage to have an MLB career longer than six years) to STILL have their salaries artificially kept in check.”
All of the salary cap talk always hinges on a few players and obscures the fact that the vast majority of salaries are already capped and will always be capped.
More than 25% of position players have a career of only one year. More than 50% don’t make it past 3 years. If a player starts his fourth year, his expected career length increases to 8.9 years, but overall, the vast majority of players do not make it past their arbitration years.
http://paa2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=61286
I can’t find much info on pitchers, but I can only imagine their careers are even shorter.
My point is: If you can’t pay free agent prices, than you must be willing to invest in the draft and pay for the highest talent you can get. If you can’t do that, than you should sell your team to someone who can because there will most definitely be a buyer in all cases.
Josh may not be aware of this, but his whole Peavy argument is based on a faulty premise. The reason the Padres are so keen to move contracts is because John Moores – the Padres principle owner – is currently going through a divorce, and expects his wife to take half of his assets. His other company is JM Construction and his liquid assets are relatively minor compared to his owned investments. Thus, he is trying to devalue the franchise and the expenses until it can be decided that he has to forfeit or sell the team or buy out his spouse.
Before using such examples please do more groundwork in teh future.
Why do you keep using the word poorer? It is a fallacy. There are owners in baseball that are wealthier than George. George just chooses to reinvest his earnings in the Yankees rather than pocket it. That isn’t my problem as a Yankee fan. Fans of the Twins should be screaming from the roof since their owner has more dough than George. The twins could have signed Johan, but choose not to reinvest money in him. That isn’t my problem, it isn’t the Mets problem.
So basically the arguments here seem to claim is that while there are some “poor” owners claiming not to be able to spend like the Yankees, there are some who indeed can. Some teams generate a revenue value of a certain amount, so I can see where you’d want to control what you reinvest so that it is seen as a profitable commodity (it’s a business first), so I can see where some of the super rich owners would want to limit reinvestment into their franchises, but at least do it to the point where you’re at least fielding the best possible team your profits allow and use the revenue sharing dollars wisely, whether that be paying more for free agents or overslot for better draft picks. So if you’re looking for real parity, then the rule should be that owners profitability cannot exceed 10% and all other proceeds to be reinvested either in free agents or draft picks.
Good luck with that by the way. No one would buy a franchise and good luck finding an investor.
“Good luck with that by the way. No one would buy a franchise and good luck finding an investor.”
Interesting that the Cubs did.
Sunny615, in my lifetime, no team has EVER had a problem finding a buyer except the Expos. And the only reason they had a problem was MLB first had to find a city to put them in.
With revenues higher than they’ve ever been, and the smallest revenue teams getting $30 million subsidy checks, I’m sure every team would have multiple offers.