Status Quo: It's just business. Keep things the same. Revenue sharing is an effective way to level the playing field. It's really not that much of an advantage to be the Yankees, Red Sox, etc... since several low payroll teams have been competitive and have won World Series. Having more resources to go over slot doesn't represent much of an advantage, either. Change: Revenue sharing fails to achieve it's theoretical objective. Owners largely just pocket profits and don't improve their on-field product. To create more parity, put some kind of cap on team payrolls and enforce how much teams can pay draft picks in order to prevent high revenue teams from having a decisive advantage when pursing the best talent in drafts and free agency. Other: Put a cap on just team payrolls or enforce slot allowances or something else entirely. If you'd like, explain the reasoning behind your choice.
Would like to see something closer to what the NFL has in place. Actually I would like to see it with the MLB and maybe even the NBA too. Maybe not to the letter, but something similar. It gets old watching guys not putting out max effort and work when they have guaranteed contracts. I know that just covers a small portion of the question, it's where I would consider starting a new process.
I think most fans would want to see a salary cap except if you live in a big market because that would kill your advantage. MLB owners are too much pu*** to challenge the big market owners to fight for a salary cap, and they would have to deal with the inevitable strike from the players. Unfortunately I don't see it changing.
I voted to keep it the way it is. Spending the most money doesn't guarantee a trip to the World Series or even a playoff appearance, just as not spending a whole lot of money doesn't mean a team can't be competitive. Yeah it sucks for teams in the AL East not named Yankees or Red Sox, but it's not impossible to win that division.
While it doesn't guarantee World Series titles for the high revenue teams or prevent low payroll teams from being competitive, does it create any kind of advantage? If so, is it fair for those teams to have even the slightest advantage? Is it more profitable for baseball as a whole? Why shouldn't there be a completely level playing field, financially, without even the slightest of an advantage for some teams?
I actually like the Yanks and Sox being dominant because it creates the "villain" in the story. Yanks and Sox have won 3 titles in the 2000s and 7 different champions besides that so I don't mind the inequality. I will say that an NBA slotting system for the MLB draft is essential to keep from crazy money getting into young men's hands that don't deserve it ala the NFL draft.
Would you like it if the NBA eliminated the soft cap in favor of no cap so that a team like NY or LA could regularly sign mutliple top-tier players? I know it's not exactly the same thing as baseball because of the difference in roster sizes and the impact that an individual can make on games but there is still some relevance to this comparison. How would you like it as a Rockets fan if a team like NY could always go after a LeBron and a Wade and a Bosh to build super teams? Would that be cool as a Rockets fan? We'd be better off then some teams but we wouldn't be the Knicks or the Lakers. Morey's moneyball would lose a lot of its effect.
Very true and maybe I feel like that because I have been desensitized to MLB economics but I also see that while the Yanks and Sox get to the playoffs most every year it by no means is a guarantee a title. I mean last year was pretty awesome in my opinion because you had the defending World Champs trying to take down the Evil Empire, it was very compelling to me. In the NBA it would be different because while the Knicks and Lakers could go out and create all-star teams those teams would eventually implode because there wouldn't be enough balls to go around. Just look at this year, the Lakers got Ron Artest and Celtics getting Wallace, everyone was drooling about what they could do but as it turns out they didn't improve and actually got worse. Saying all that, I think that a salary cap would be the best thing for MLB because teams like the Royals, Pirates and Blue Jays will NEVER be competitive and will eventually kill those franchises.
I don't like the "more money doesn't guarantee a title" argument. That is obvious and besides the point. It's not about guarantees. It's about advantages. Does the lack of cap create any kind of "advantage" for higher revenue teams? If so, is it fair for those teams to have that advantage? Or, is it justifiable for them to have that advantage because it's good for the industry or something to that effect?
I want to make clear that I'm not suggesting that the Astros' current mess is mostly due to the lack of a cap. If that is a factor, it is way down on the list. This topic came to mind when talking about slot allowances in the game thread.
Well this spring training the teams most experts said had the most talent in the game wasn't the Yanks or Sox rather the Rays and Rockies...I say no just going by that. The reality is that it does but IMO it makes the journey so much more fun.
So, should we make the journey more fun in all professional sports? Would it be fun if the Rockets, Texans and Astros were all subject to a financial disadvantage compared to the biggest of big market teams? Also, just because the highest revenue teams weren't targeted as having the most talent doesn't discount the possible advantages for those teams. You could argue that they'd be even further behind whoever the experts picked as the most talented teams if not for their financial advantages. This is even assuming that they made accurate talent projections.
Get closer to the NBA. We need league minimums and maximums, max salaries, and some sort of draft wage scale. Only problem is what changes happen with the draft. Do you start making players declare?
But the difference is that the Yankees and Red Sox can keep that talent, whereas the Rays are going to start losing all their players beginning this offseason with Carl Crawford. Bottom line is that if you have a $200MM payroll, you can make more mistakes than a team with a $60MM payroll. For the Rays, everything has to go perfectly - for the Yankees, if they screw up, they can just buy another player. The whole point of a sports league is to provide a competitive, fair playing field. I don't think there's anyway to argue that the playing field provided by MLB is remotely fair.
Oh I agree with you and Brooks but as a fan I love to see the unbeatable team go down in a blaze of glory. I am one of those people who think MLB is better with the Yanks, Sox, Dodgers and Mets all good so there can be a villain to take down. I guess I think a salary cap needs to be put in play but not to hurt the powerhouse teams but instead help the small market teams to stay competitive.
As much as I hate this, it's better for baseball that the Yankees and Red Sox are in the playoffs every yearl. You get all kinds of casual fans across the country watching the playoffs that wouldn't if any other team is playing. For the most part everyone will follow NFL and NBA playoffs regardless if their favorite team is in or not, but not so much in baseball.
The arguments favoring to keep the current system in this topic are pretty poor. You can have your powerhouse/villain teams even with hard caps. Brooks and Major pretty much echoed what I was gonna say. But I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Would you feel this way if you were an Orioles, Rays, or Blue Jays fan? What you're saying is that those teams should never make the playoffs under any circumstances.
Who would that be in the NFL? The Saints, Colts, Vikings or Jets??? The NFL has a hard cap and it has created incredible parity which I think is why it's so popular. If you handle your business right, their is no reason a team can't contend. The NBA with it's soft cap gives teams the ability to go over the LT but work around the SC which created a nice middle ground IMO but what this has done is created the have and have nots. I like rooting against the Lakers but the chances they get beat are slim to none until the big boys meet. While it could fun to see two mega powers meet, I just find the Butler vs Duke storyline so much more interesting. MLB, with the Yanks and Sox can go nuts and spend like crazy, has set the stage with two big guns and EVERYONE else going after them in many different ways. Angels/Phillies try to spend cash to contend, Rays/Rockies try to build devastating farm teams and Cards/Braves try a little bit of both. I just like the fact you have two obvious giants of the sports and all these teams gunning for them. In the end, a salary cap needs to go into effect in MLB soon because low market teams are getting killed and thats not good for MLB. My argument is that people blame the Sox/Yanks because they have the resources to spend when in reality they add to the drama that is MLB.
This I totally agree with. Losing a guy like Crawford and then all of their pitching once all of their arbitration clocks hit. Yikes.
