Since the the players association will never approve a out and out player cap for MLB, what other solutions could possibly be brought about? Remember, this is not just an issue to get more league parity, it's also to get it w/out the players thumbing their noses at it.
I heard one interesting one the other day. On every team of 25, you have 20 players that have to add up to $50 milllion and 5 "franchise" players that can be paid however much you want. Since the player's union is mostly in support of making sure stars don't get salary cuts, they wouldn't balk at it and it would also prevent the Yankees from stocking up on stars. Both the 50 mil and the 5 players are arbitrary numbers for this plan however, in the Yankees instance, they could have A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, Sheffield, and Rivera maybe but would have to fit Posada, Mussina, Matsui, Lofton, Brown, Vazquez, etc. ALL under 50 mil. Obviously, this would force a team like the Yanks from stocking up indefinitely. Sure, the luxary tax helps a little, but really, George doesn't give a shit if he has to dole out an extra 20-30 mil in penalties because he exceeded the soft cap. The revenue flows are mighty and wide for him.
Any other new ideas or refinements to this possible one?
In lieu of
-
masteen
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 8197
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
Let baseball choke on it's own vomit. I'm so sick of the rampant greed on both sides, I WANT to see it fucking die, just so I can shout "I TOLD YOU ASSHOLES SO!" at the fucking funeral.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
-
Xouqoa
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 4106
- Joined: July 2, 2002, 5:49 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- XBL Gamertag: Xouqoa
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
All professional sports need a salary cap... that's really all there is to it. It promotes even competition and keeps player salaries from becoming super inflated and ruining the league, like what we are seeing in the NHL.
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings." - John F Kennedy
If there's not going to ever be a salary cap, why suggest it? If baseball has it's best attendance ever and it's best revenue, tv ratings, merchandise ever, why is it going to go the way of the dino? Hate to break it to you, but baseball is making money overall while the NHL shittanks. The baseball player's association holds clout and revenue streams where the NHL holds little of either. They are not able to be matched equally.
I expect better. I don't care if you don't like baseball, hell, I don't like college football because the spread of talent pool makes the skill level piss poor and makes for a boring game and NO parity exists AND it's corrupt as hell, but that wasn't my question and I don't bring it up when someone asks about the state of the game or a suggestion to improve upon it.
Just let the question die if you don't give a shit or ignore the reality of the environment the question exists in.
I expect better. I don't care if you don't like baseball, hell, I don't like college football because the spread of talent pool makes the skill level piss poor and makes for a boring game and NO parity exists AND it's corrupt as hell, but that wasn't my question and I don't bring it up when someone asks about the state of the game or a suggestion to improve upon it.
Just let the question die if you don't give a shit or ignore the reality of the environment the question exists in.
My question about it is:
Would it be mandatory that the other twenty players add up to exactly fifty million? Do these twenty have identical salaries, or must their salaries add up to fifty million regardless of dispersion?
If they have identical salaries ($2.5 million), then there would clearly be issues with players not being able to earn a raise. For instance, Placido Polanco is clearly a worthwhile player, who can bat close to .300 and play top-notch defense at a variety of positions. He certainly would not qualify as much of anyones "franchise player," but he should still have the opportunity to raise his pay based on his play. I would imagine, though, that this is not the option that you meant.
If they can have different salaries, other problems arise. If a team has only one open spot, for instance, then their negotiating options are clearly limited, as they can offer only one exact dollar figure. What if a team only wants a left-handed middle inning specialist, but they have $7 million available? They'll be forced to offer him the entirety of the money. Conversely, if a team needs a starting second basemen and has already committed $49 million, they could be fucked, although this is less of a problem, because it reflects poor cap management on part of the team. Basically, I'd be afraid that such a hard cap would inhibit the abilities of teams to actually bid on players, and in some cases, send players to the team with the lowest payroll, because the other teams simply were not allowed to match the offer. Also, wouldn't this mandate steady salaries (that is, x amount of money a year for x years, as opposed to the ascending salaries we often see now) because of the rigidity of the cap?
Additionally, would the five "franchise" players be the five highest paid, or whoever the team wanted? Could the Brewers have all five franchise players making the league minimum? Do the Brewers (or Tigers or Pirates or...) have five players who are worth more than $2.5 million a year?
My tweaks:
Make the $50 million cap a little more flexible, say $40-$60 million. That way, teams would have the ability to go the extra mile for important players, teams who were rebuilding wouldn't have to dish out extra salary, but payrolls would still be relatively competitive and have a mandated minimum.
Also, I think that 5 franchise players at any cost is too much. What about two players who can be paid anywhere from $3 to $10 million without counting against the cap, and three who can be paid any amount?
Of course, that would be even less acceptable to the Yankees and such, as they have a number of players making more than $10 million a year.
I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but it seems like, under your proposal, the Yankees would still have a payroll of $133 million, while the small market teams would be at $55 million or so. While that's not perfect, it's worlds better than the $25 million / $200 million disparity that exists now.
Would it be mandatory that the other twenty players add up to exactly fifty million? Do these twenty have identical salaries, or must their salaries add up to fifty million regardless of dispersion?
If they have identical salaries ($2.5 million), then there would clearly be issues with players not being able to earn a raise. For instance, Placido Polanco is clearly a worthwhile player, who can bat close to .300 and play top-notch defense at a variety of positions. He certainly would not qualify as much of anyones "franchise player," but he should still have the opportunity to raise his pay based on his play. I would imagine, though, that this is not the option that you meant.
If they can have different salaries, other problems arise. If a team has only one open spot, for instance, then their negotiating options are clearly limited, as they can offer only one exact dollar figure. What if a team only wants a left-handed middle inning specialist, but they have $7 million available? They'll be forced to offer him the entirety of the money. Conversely, if a team needs a starting second basemen and has already committed $49 million, they could be fucked, although this is less of a problem, because it reflects poor cap management on part of the team. Basically, I'd be afraid that such a hard cap would inhibit the abilities of teams to actually bid on players, and in some cases, send players to the team with the lowest payroll, because the other teams simply were not allowed to match the offer. Also, wouldn't this mandate steady salaries (that is, x amount of money a year for x years, as opposed to the ascending salaries we often see now) because of the rigidity of the cap?
Additionally, would the five "franchise" players be the five highest paid, or whoever the team wanted? Could the Brewers have all five franchise players making the league minimum? Do the Brewers (or Tigers or Pirates or...) have five players who are worth more than $2.5 million a year?
My tweaks:
Make the $50 million cap a little more flexible, say $40-$60 million. That way, teams would have the ability to go the extra mile for important players, teams who were rebuilding wouldn't have to dish out extra salary, but payrolls would still be relatively competitive and have a mandated minimum.
Also, I think that 5 franchise players at any cost is too much. What about two players who can be paid anywhere from $3 to $10 million without counting against the cap, and three who can be paid any amount?
Of course, that would be even less acceptable to the Yankees and such, as they have a number of players making more than $10 million a year.
I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but it seems like, under your proposal, the Yankees would still have a payroll of $133 million, while the small market teams would be at $55 million or so. While that's not perfect, it's worlds better than the $25 million / $200 million disparity that exists now.
I guess I would say that a franchise player could be whomever the team decides it to be, not necessarily the highest paid. Maybe the naming of a team's franchise player can follow trade deadline timelines. Under that situation, your MR would, either, have to be deemed a franchise player or the cap would have to remain somewhat fluid like your 40-60 suggestion. In addition, any cap would have to take into account cost of living adjustments or any change that can raise revenue flow for the owners and/or league because of the players (for instance, if the MLB online package gets 10 million subscriptions all of the sudden).
To answer your first question, non-franchise players can earn whatever they want to so long as the remaining team's payroll falls under the cap, ie. you could keep Posada on at 7 mil so long as you can get the other 19 guys under 43. As you mentioned yourself, cap management would have to become a skill again for the Yankees. In the interim, grandfathered salary arrangements that ascend (like Giambi or Jeter) would have to be accounted for and makes a strong case for keeping the cap not as rigid.
While the Yankees payroll may loft around $133 mil under this idea, it's not as much of a dollar issue as it is that the Yankees wouldn't be able to outbid every single team every time to the point where they have, literally, 12 all-stars on their roster. Hell, George could pay whatever he wants to for those five guys and still get a 150 mil payroll w/ 5 $20 mil franchise guys, but the rest of the roster would have to remain in check.
To answer your first question, non-franchise players can earn whatever they want to so long as the remaining team's payroll falls under the cap, ie. you could keep Posada on at 7 mil so long as you can get the other 19 guys under 43. As you mentioned yourself, cap management would have to become a skill again for the Yankees. In the interim, grandfathered salary arrangements that ascend (like Giambi or Jeter) would have to be accounted for and makes a strong case for keeping the cap not as rigid.
While the Yankees payroll may loft around $133 mil under this idea, it's not as much of a dollar issue as it is that the Yankees wouldn't be able to outbid every single team every time to the point where they have, literally, 12 all-stars on their roster. Hell, George could pay whatever he wants to for those five guys and still get a 150 mil payroll w/ 5 $20 mil franchise guys, but the rest of the roster would have to remain in check.
If lower payroll teams thought they had a chance at competing then they would pay higher wages. WIth the yankees blowing the wad every year though then lower teams like the Brewers don't see a point in wasting any more money than they have to to field a team. I don't see baseball being fixed until they have a hard cap in place. A cap of 50-60 million will bring parity to the sport and make it popular again. Teams riding the low end of the salary pole will have reason to invest in their teams again. It has worked great for football. The only thing I would add is revenue sharing amongst players. Give them a share of all the profits being generated to accomodate the lower salaries they are going to have to take.
Deward
The players association will never ever allow it as a hard cap because they will never ever take a pay cut when they are performing well. Besides, a winning team doesn't guarantee a high revenue flow(A's anyone?) and, conversely, a high payroll doesn't guarantee a winning team (Mets).
The reason football can do it is because ALL of the TV money earned through the NFL is split between the different teams. You are going to make the Yankees or the Red Sox or the Cubs who earn their money through multiple channels be forced to subsidize an owner in Tampa where attendence is only 12k a night? It will never happen. Maybe if they decided on TV revenue sharing back when all of the owners were raking in the cash because the players weren't earning shit back in the 60's like the NFL, maybe we'd be in a different situation. That's not what exists today though.
Baseball is more popular than ever btw
The reason football can do it is because ALL of the TV money earned through the NFL is split between the different teams. You are going to make the Yankees or the Red Sox or the Cubs who earn their money through multiple channels be forced to subsidize an owner in Tampa where attendence is only 12k a night? It will never happen. Maybe if they decided on TV revenue sharing back when all of the owners were raking in the cash because the players weren't earning shit back in the 60's like the NFL, maybe we'd be in a different situation. That's not what exists today though.
Baseball is more popular than ever btw
-
Pherr the Dorf
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2913
- Joined: January 31, 2003, 9:30 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Sonoma County Calimifornia