| RotoGuru Baseball Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: should there be a (gasp) salary cap? Posted by: yankeeh8tr - [39127169] Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 10:58 Hmmmm...seeing the words salary cap bandied about in the wake of the Pay-Rod/NY scandal. I'm curious just how serious everyone is about it. It's to the point where I could care less whether there's baseball at all, and I'd be happy if the owners lock out the players for as long as it takes to get a salary cap in place. I prefer a soft cap which you can exceed to re-sign your own free agents, but must get beneath to sign free agents from other teams. A salary floor should also be set as well. | |||||||
| 1 | Ref Donor ID: 539581218 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 11:22 |
This has been discussed ad nauseum. It's sick that the Yanks are able to have a payroll more than 7 times to that of the D-Rays...PLUS the luxury tax!!! Peter Gammons is saying that Boston gave up on perhaps the best player in baseball when all is said and done over chump change--$2 Mill/year...but someone has to draw the line somehwere...but it's not the Yankees. I don't blame the Yankees. Sure the players almost went on strike to prevent a hard cap, but it's the owners got themselves into this mess to start with. I think the Rangers should have to choke on ARod's contract as they are the ones that made their bed for the rest of the league to lie in. | ||||||
| 2 | Madman ID: 441101512 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 11:26 |
Major League Baseball is a joke to anybody with half a brain. I stopped following and watching it years ago. They won't change a thing until people stop going to the games especially the people in cities that don't have a prayer of competing year after year. I think people in those cities are just going to the games to get out of the house on a summer day. The sport is so messed up that's the only reason I can think of to go to a game for 3/4 of the league. People have to stop going and a few teams going bankrupt or folding might change things. I would love to see a few teams go bankrupt. | ||||||
| 3 | Perm Dude Dude ID: 30792616 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 11:37 |
Madman, I think many people go to those games because they like to see their "hometown" players--it's civic pride. Also, where else will you see MLB players other than at a MLB game? And let's make this clear: Teams aren't going to go bankrupt as long as municipalities are throwing in tax money at the teams. It's not about fans not going to the games, since most income for teams comes from other sources. pd | ||||||
| 4 | Ref Donor ID: 539581218 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 11:40 |
I disagree Madman. I don't want baseball to fail, though I think a strike may have hurt the players and the league so badly it may have actually helped in the long, long run. I do think that baseball tickets are out of control for the average family, but most sports seem to be the same way or worse. Baseball has more games than any other sport and has more seats available by far than anyone except the NFL. 81 games vs. 8 games. When you have more home games (esp for a long homestand) you have to have more reasons to get the people at the game--esp. multiple games. It's very hard to do and at those prices to take say a family of four---well you can see why the attendance is down throughout the league. | ||||||
| 5 | Khahan ID: 5044129 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 12:18 |
No, there should not be a salary cap. To me, disparity is part of baseball. Now, the Yankees have taken disparity to a whole new level. They've taken it to an extreme that is not good for baseball. That is what George is responsible for. However, baseball is responsible for letting the situation get as bad as its gotten. Baseball needs to step in and set some ground rules, though NOT hard cap. Here is what I propose: A minimum spending amt (because the Brewers are just as bad as the Yankees) and a max spending amt. If any team is not w/in that range, they owe a luxury tax. That tax should not go to baseball in general. Rather it should go to roster spending for the other teams w/in that division. (note, these numbers to follow are 100% made up just for an example). Say the minimum spending is $50mil and the Brewers carry a payroll of $35mil. Well, t hey owe another $15 which is to be divided equally among the other teams in their division. Now, will they spend at $50mil on themselves, or will they go with $35 mil for themselves and $15 mil for their competitors. The drawback to this of course, is that it is an impediment to developing new talent. Something would have to be put in place for teams that are truly rebuilding and trying to develop homegrown talent (ie: The Jays over the past 5-6 years). On the opposite end is a limit of $150mil. If the Yankees have salary totaling $180 mil, they owe a % tax and t hat money then goes directly to the payroll of their direct competitors. However, some accounting needs to be in place to show that the teams are using those funds for payroll. For instance, if the Devil Rays have a payroll of $50mil this year and receive $8mil from the Yankees, they should (in theory) have a payroll of $58mil next year (over simplied, but you get the idea...they must use those funds for payroll). Basically, set a range of realistic spending on payroll. Anybody can pay outside of that range on their own payroll. But if they choose to do this, then they will directly benefit their most immediate competition. That is a deterrant. | ||||||
| 6 | blue hen ID: 331038201 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 15:20 | But the Devil Rays (owners) will just keep that extra 8 mil for themselves. | ||||||
| 7 | Chuck Sustainer ID: 169212110 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 15:25 |
bh-- I think Khahan is saying that the teams would be required to spend the additional $8 mill on the team, or forfeit it. That idea has to have a salary minimum. If every team had a $50 mill minimum, they would need to spend at least $58 mill (assuming they received an additional $8 mill). | ||||||
| 8 | clv Sustainer ID: 5911351713 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 15:38 | That is a part of the reason I personally oppose a salary cap - the "luxury-tax" that is divvied up between the teams that DON'T exceed the threshold always seems to wind up in the smaller-market owners' checking accounts as opposed to being spent to improve the product they put on the field...I wouldn't oppose a sliding scale in the luxury-tax set-up much as Khahan mentioned - set the number at $125 million (for instance), and charge ANYONE (not just the Yankees) a 25% overage penalty on any amount above that, and divide it amongst the teams who didn't exceed it, but require that any money received by the "have-nots" from the "haves" (including any other revenue-sharing such as cable contracts and the like) is either spent solely on payroll upgrades or forefeited. This would somewhat ensure that the lesser teams are at least somewhat attempting to compete rather than padding their owners portfolios by riding the big-market teams' coattails. | ||||||
| 9 | clv Sustainer ID: 5911351713 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 16:12 | Or if you REALLY want to institute a way of seeing to it that the lesser teams are forced to try to improve themselves, set the number at $80 - $90 million, which would include even more teams contributing to increasing those at the bottom of the payroll scale, but make sure that the minimum proposed before was a "hard" number, such as $50 million - anyone spending less than that on payroll isn't serious about competing regardless of what they say. | ||||||
| 10 | blue hen ID: 331038201 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 16:23 | Chuck, if they spent that particular 8 million on the team, then they'll keep 8 of the million they were otherwise going to spend... | ||||||
| 11 | Perm Dude Dude ID: 30792616 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 16:28 | Forcing teams to spend more money on salary will only (gasp!) drive salaries up. | ||||||
| 12 | Myboyjack ID: 21556266 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 16:45 | I don't see how forcing the Devil Rays to Ben Grieve more money helps anything. | ||||||
| 13 | R9 Leader ID: 2624472 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 17:03 |
Hockey is coming to the same confrontation this year, so baseball will have a guideline on how to solve these problems by the time the next labor contract is up. For those of you not familiar with the current NHL situation, the owners are demanding a hard cap, and have stated they're willing to sit out a year (or more) to get it. The players are saying the oppose a hard cap, and are willing to sit out a year (or more) to get what they want. Some players are threatening to retire, or play in Europe. The owners and the league are taking this opportunity to implement all the rule changes in the game that fans have wanted for years, but that the players have opposed. I mean hell, if your going to be in the pissing fit of the century for the next year with the Players Association anyway, may as well get your money's worth... Its going to be long and ugly, but in the end the sport will be better for it. I feel the same way about baseball. The agreement that prevented a strike two years ago might have seemed like a great idea, but it only prolonged the inevitable. A cap is needed for the sport as it is to survive. Either that, or baseball becomes an 8 team league, with all the other mid and small market teams breaking off to form a more equal league. | ||||||
| 14 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 217351118 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 19:37 |
I don't see how forcing the Devil Rays to Ben Grieve more money helps anything. Agreed, but revenue sharing/luxury tax funds that go to teams that can't afford a competetive roster should be used on player salaries, not to make up for revenue losses or to otherwise line the owners' pockets. If the DRays receive $30mil in funds diverted from other teams and field a $20m team, they should be required to give at least $10m back. | ||||||
| 15 | GolfFreak ID: 57131110 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 19:42 |
Totally agree with MITH #14 What is the amount teams recieve? from revenue sharing/luxury tax funds | ||||||
| 16 | Myboyjack ID: 21556266 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 20:24 | Seems like a cap/floor would fix that. MITH. Do we disagree? | ||||||
| 17 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 217351118 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 21:26 | I don't like the idea of a cap, or see why one would be necessary if there was a better revenue sharing/luxury tax system in place. Surely you agree that the placement of the tax threshold so that only the Yankees were over it is a joke. I don't know that I like the idea of a minimum payroll, either. A team with limited resources should be able to try to bank funds through a rebuilding period to use sometime later as it develops toward contention. I would just ensure that teams use funds redistributed to them for their payroll each year, and not for profit or to pay for other costs. | ||||||
| 18 | Stamati ID: 42012716 Mon, Feb 16, 2004, 21:56 |
Madman, I agree...The MLB is a pinball of salaries and dollars thrown in every which direction...I mean look at it; we pay guys millions nad millions of dollars to play a kid's sport (I'd do it for free)... Not to crack on the Yanks or anything, but there are teams that have not even 3/4 of the payroll they do...I hope a few teams go bankrupt also, so we can finally get a cap installed...And what's wrong with a cap? Without it, we'd see 4 or 5 "bulked" teams everyear, with the same garbage over and over again...Why not throw a cap in and get some equal oppurtunities here? Sure, Yankee Stadium and Pac Bell sure's hell sell out a lot more than any one else, no question....but these payrolls are insane, the luxury taxes and revenue sharing even worse, I mean come on, what's going on here?? Look at the NBA, NFL, caps work, and you have good teams throughout...I'd sit here and list the Lakers, Patriots, but there's no point...A lot of Yankee fans hate to see a cap, and it's understandable, considering this lineup of "Overloaded Bombers" (i'd sure hate it) but for the 25 or so other teams, i think it should be done; hey give us a fair plateau to begin on... It's crazy..hell im still not watching MLB..it's the Long Island DUcks for me! (hey that rhymes) | ||||||
| 19 | bibA ID: 461211610 Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 12:01 | There should not be a salary cap. Reason being- the Yankees might be restricted from getting Nomar Garciaparra to fill their hole at second! | ||||||
| 20 | Myboyjack ID: 21556266 Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 19:45 |
 heh. | ||||||
| 21 | Gabriele ID: 575510 Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 01:55 | Hello my name is Viki Eredia, I am A contestant in the Mrs. California Pageant. I am hnioldg the Title of Mrs. South Bay. I would like to participate in the parade. Im really not sure though if I am considered a non profit org. could you help me decide so I can fill out the app correctly and get it in on time. Please reply to this Email or call me @ 310-863-6601, Thank You Mrs. South Bay | ||||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: should there be a (gasp) salary cap? | ||||||||