The Marlins payroll....

[FIN-IN-RI]

This is why before MLB can worry about a salary cap, they need to insert a "salary basement" where owners MUST spend a certain amount on actual players. To prevent teams like the Marlins from doing what they do. And to prevent owners in KC and Cincy from taking money from profit sharing and spending it on expanding the size of the cup holders in the stadium rather on actual on field talent.

For the sake of argument, why bother putting a basement in place? The owner owns the team and the stadium, he might as well spend his money on how he sees fit. If fans don't like the way the operation is being run then they should stop going to games, forcing the owner to lose money, forcing the owner to do what the fans want: put a winning team on the field.

 

[MikeO]

For the sake of argument, why bother putting a basement in place? The owner owns the team and the stadium, he might as well spend his money on how he sees fit. If fans don't like the way the operation is being run then they should stop going to games, forcing the owner to lose money, forcing the owner to do what the fans want: put a winning team on the field.

But these owners don't put a winning team on the field. They make their billions in other ways in other businesses and just use their baseball team as a toy or as a way to make in-roads politically in their state/city/area.

 

[RWhitney014]

This is why before MLB can worry about a salary cap, they need to insert a "salary basement" where owners MUST spend a certain amount on actual players. To prevent teams like the Marlins from doing what they do. And to prevent owners in KC and Cincy from taking money from profit sharing and spending it on expanding the size of the cup holders in the stadium rather on actual on field talent.

I don't automatically disagree with you, but a cap will precede a floor.

Anyway, Peter Gammons actually addressed this issue on his blog on ESPN.com over the weekend when he wrote about how talented these Marlins really are. (:D )

 

[Roman529]

Why should most of these owners shell out millions of dollars if they don't have a sweet cable deal like George Steinbrenner. Most of them are still going to make money if they are in big markets.....Small market teams like Miami, KC, Pittsburgh, Colorado, conduct fire sales as they don't have the money to compete. That's what's wrong with baseball....the best teams have owners that buy the best talent...I don't fault the Yankees and Red Sox for always spending the money to win, but it's not like the NFL where all 32 teams have a decent shot each year.

 

[phunwin]

Why should most of these owners shell out millions of dollars if they don't have a sweet cable deal like George Steinbrenner. Most of them are still going to make money if they are in big markets.....Small market teams like Miami, KC, Pittsburgh, Colorado, conduct fire sales as they don't have the money to compete. That's what's wrong with baseball....the best teams have owners that buy the best talent...I don't fault the Yankees and Red Sox for always spending the money to win, but it's not like the NFL where all 32 teams have a decent shot each year.

MLB has had six different champions in six years, and the 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins and 2005 White Sox were all middle-class teams in terms of payroll. Read this article. And this one. Parity in baseball is in much better shape than you think.

 

[MikeO]

Why should most of these owners shell out millions of dollars if they don't have a sweet cable deal like George Steinbrenner. Most of them are still going to make money if they are in big markets.....Small market teams like Miami, KC, Pittsburgh, Colorado, conduct fire sales as they don't have the money to compete. That's what's wrong with baseball....the best teams have owners that buy the best talent...I don't fault the Yankees and Red Sox for always spending the money to win, but it's not like the NFL where all 32 teams have a decent shot each year.

Sure they do. The Twins and A's are always making the playoffs. Every team has a shot. Florida isn't a small market either. Sorry, when you buy a championship in 1997 and when you go out and give Delgado a huge contract I don't want to hear how they are small market. They are cheap! There is a difference.

You bought hook, line, and sinker into these small market owners crying poor. These guys are billionares 50 times over and have money. They get money from revenue sharing and put it in their bank account, not into their team. Which defeats the purpose of REVENUE SHARING. When the owner of the Reds gets millions in revenue sharing and doesn't improve the team, ye the size of the cup holders its a friggin joke on every level.

And in the 1980's Steinbrenner had a better cable deal than everyone else and the Yanks sucked. So, this notion that good cable deal=winning is a joke. It's a cheap excuse for owners being lazy and dumb. Spend your money wisely and you will win. Be a moron and you won't.

 

[MikeO]

MLB has had six different champions in six years, and the 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins and 2005 White Sox were all middle-class teams in terms of payroll. Read this article. And this one. Parity in baseball is in much better shape than you think.

Having money might get you near the playoffs in the hunt, but it won't get you IN the playoffs and it won't win you anything once in.

And everytime the A's or Twins make the playoffs it kills these people who want a salary cap's argument.

 

[GreenMonster]

Having money might get you near the playoffs in the hunt, but it won't get you IN the playoffs and it won't win you anything once in.

And everytime the A's or Twins make the playoffs it kills these people who want a salary cap's argument.

I agree with Mike, a floor would be 100x better than a salary cap in baseball.. If you thought the league had good parity now, imagine if every team had to spend 50-60 million a year as a floor.. Sure teams would give players Chan Ho Park like deals and mess up there team for years but I think this would make baseball even better..

 

[phunwin]

Having money might get you near the playoffs in the hunt, but it won't get you IN the playoffs and it won't win you anything once in.

And everytime the A's or Twins make the playoffs it kills these people who want a salary cap's argument.

I completely agree. The second article I cited above, by David Schoenfield, makes a dead-on comparison between the NFL, the beloved "league of widespread parity", and MLB, and finds there's not a heck of a lot of difference between the two. The bad teams in the NFL, who have both a salary cap and salary floor, have always been bad; it hasn't done much of anything for them.

 

[MikeO]

another thing.........do you ever see "HOLDOUTS" in MLB??? No, want to know why? Cause there is no salary cap.

Insert a salary cap and just like in the NBA and NFL you will have guys holding out, not showing up for spring training on time, and all of that nonsense.

If you have a salary cap here is what will happen, the teams that DON'T spend any money now, will continue not to spend money and be nowhere near the cap limit. While the Yanks, Sox, Dodgers, Orioles, Mets....etc will just get "creative" and find ways to continue spending on where they currently are now, but just hide money and have stupid incentives and roster bonuses.

And there will NEVER be a cap because that means REVENUE SHARING then goes away and those big checks these small market owners get for doing nothnig will go away, and they aren't that stupid to blow such a good thing.

 

[RWhitney014]

another thing.........do you ever see "HOLDOUTS" in MLB??? No, want to know why? Cause there is no salary cap.

Insert a salary cap and just like in the NBA and NFL you will have guys holding out, not showing up for spring training on time, and all of that nonsense.

If you have a salary cap here is what will happen, the teams that DON'T spend any money now, will continue not to spend money and be nowhere near the cap limit. While the Yanks, Sox, Dodgers, Orioles, Mets....etc will just get "creative" and find ways to continue spending on where they currently are now, but just hide money and have stupid incentives and roster bonuses.

And there will NEVER be a cap because that means REVENUE SHARING then goes away and those big checks these small market owners get for doing nothnig will go away, and they aren't that stupid to blow such a good thing.

Derek Bell, Operation Shutdown, 2002.

While there may be holdouts in the NFL, there's no way you can argue the salary cap wasn't good for that league.

 

[MikeO]

Derek Bell, Operation Shutdown, 2002.

While there may be holdouts in the NFL, there's no way you can argue the salary cap wasn't good for that league.

Who was it good for? Not the players, they get screwed on contracts. They put their bodies through hell and don't get guarnteed money. Yeah, that salary cap is great for them. Not the fans. We have such a diminished level of play on the field now teams that are 8-8 win divisions and we arent' far away from a 7-9 team winning a division. Because the TV money is so great and that TV deal treats everyone equal, prices for DIRECTV Sunday Ticket go up and up and up and up and up. Soon they are gonna make us pay for the sound at an extra cost. We will give ya the video for one price and the sound for another. Teams can pay off their payroll of players just on the TV deal alone, which means these owners can rape and pilliage us at the stadium and charge anything for everything!

You know who the salary cap is good for, the 32 owners. For everyone else involved in the sport its the devil.

I know your argument, it gives everyone a fair chance to win. No it doesn't. Arizona stunk before the cap and have stunk since the cap. Cleveland has stunk prior to the cap and has stunk since the cap...etc..etc...etc. The examples can go on forever. It has been PROVEN, that you can't BUY championships in the NFL (ie WASHINGTON REDSKINS and OAKLAND RAIDERS). So, with no cap how would any one team benifit??? They wouldn't, but the NFL and their propaganda media machine has you and the masses fooled that a few owenrs would just start buying championships, something that can't be done in this sport! What NO salary cap does do....it allows guys like Madison and Surtain to retire a Fin though. It allows players to start and finish with 1 team. It allows LESS movement among players. But the NFL has everyone fooled on this whole concept.

 

[FIN-IN-RI]

Who was it good for? Not the players, they get screwed on contracts. They put their bodies through hell and don't get guarnteed money. Yeah, that salary cap is great for them. Not the fans. We have such a diminished level of play on the field now teams that are 8-8 win divisions and we arent' far away from a 7-9 team winning a division. Because the TV money is so great and that TV deal treats everyone equal, prices for DIRECTV Sunday Ticket go up and up and up and up and up. Soon they are gonna make us pay for the sound at an extra cost. We will give ya the video for one price and the sound for another. Teams can pay off their payroll of players just on the TV deal alone, which means these owners can rape and pilliage us at the stadium and charge anything for everything!

You know who the salary cap is good for, the 32 owners. For everyone else involved in the sport its the devil.

I know your argument, it gives everyone a fair chance to win. No it doesn't. Arizona stunk before the cap and have stunk since the cap. Cleveland has stunk prior to the cap and has stunk since the cap...etc..etc...etc. The examples can go on forever. It has been PROVEN, that you can't BUY championships in the NFL (ie WASHINGTON REDSKINS and OAKLAND RAIDERS). So, with no cap how would any one team benifit??? They wouldn't, but the NFL and their propaganda media machine has you and the masses fooled that a few owenrs would just start buying championships, something that can't be done in this sport! What NO salary cap does do....it allows guys like Madison and Surtain to retire a Fin though. It allows players to start and finish with 1 team. It allows LESS movement among players. But the NFL has everyone fooled on this whole concept.

Amen.

 

[FinsNYanksFan13]

Just for the record, I'm against salary caps in every sport !

 

[RWhitney014]

Who was it good for? Not the players, they get screwed on contracts. They put their bodies through hell and don't get guarnteed money. Yeah, that salary cap is great for them. Not the fans. We have such a diminished level of play on the field now teams that are 8-8 win divisions and we arent' far away from a 7-9 team winning a division. Because the TV money is so great and that TV deal treats everyone equal, prices for DIRECTV Sunday Ticket go up and up and up and up and up. Soon they are gonna make us pay for the sound at an extra cost. We will give ya the video for one price and the sound for another. Teams can pay off their payroll of players just on the TV deal alone, which means these owners can rape and pilliage us at the stadium and charge anything for everything!

You know who the salary cap is good for, the 32 owners. For everyone else involved in the sport its the devil.

I know your argument, it gives everyone a fair chance to win. No it doesn't. Arizona stunk before the cap and have stunk since the cap. Cleveland has stunk prior to the cap and has stunk since the cap...etc..etc...etc. The examples can go on forever. It has been PROVEN, that you can't BUY championships in the NFL (ie WASHINGTON REDSKINS and OAKLAND RAIDERS). So, with no cap how would any one team benifit??? They wouldn't, but the NFL and their propaganda media machine has you and the masses fooled that a few owenrs would just start buying championships, something that can't be done in this sport! What NO salary cap does do....it allows guys like Madison and Surtain to retire a Fin though. It allows players to start and finish with 1 team. It allows LESS movement among players. But the NFL has everyone fooled on this whole concept.

That's not my argument at all. My argument is that the league went from one of the 4 major sports, probably the second-most popular, to the new national pastime since the advent of the cap. Players' contracts may not be guaranteed, but they're hundreds of percent higher than they used to be. The $34 million signing bonus Manning got, or whatever it was, was unheard of in those days.

The owners are making a grand fortune off of it, for sure. But there is no doubt the league as a whole has become a stronger entity.

That being said, implementing a salary cap is going to be damn near impossible. Who's gonna be the one to stand up to George and say, oh, cut your payroll by $50 million. Or to John Henry. Or Arte Moreno. And if they simply impose a $200 million cap, that obviously does no good. But I don't see a floor without a cap or before one, despite its benefits for the fans.