How different would baseball look if there was a salary cap? (1 Viewer)

[AtomicDogg97]

I have always wondered how different the landscape of baseball would be if a salary cap was in place. Would teams like the A's and Indians dominate because they do such a great job at scouting and talent evaluation. At the same time, would teams like the Red Sox and Yankees lose 100 games every year because they can't buy the best talent anymore. Would there be alot more change year to year in who the top teams are?

What do you guys think?

 

[Darth Cheney]

I think that the Yanks would get around it by buying the Dominican Republic and using it as their own farm system. Why wouldn't the Yanks have the highest salaries in scouting and training?

 

[Wrigley]

It would look more like the NFL.

Much more diversity.

 

[Darth Cheney]

It would look more like the NFL.Much more diversity.

No way....MLB has players from DR, Puerto Rico, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico and a number of other countries. I doubt the NFL has that much diversity.

 

[ceo3west]

I have always wondered how different the landscape of baseball would be if a salary cap was in place. Would teams like the A's and Indians dominate because they do such a great job at scouting and talent evaluation. At the same time, would teams like the Red Sox and Yankees lose 100 games every year because they can't buy the best talent anymore. Would there be alot more change year to year in who the top teams are?What do you guys think?

I'm a Yankee fan, and I agree that a cap should be in place. However, there are plently of low budget teams that make a LOT of $$$, but owners choose not to spend it on players, rather they stuff their pockets. Don't blame George - yes he makes a lot of $$$, but he spends a lot on players because he's dedicated to winning. You can't say the same about many other owners in the league.

 

[JohnnyU]

I have always wondered how different the landscape of baseball would be if a salary cap was in place. Would teams like the A's and Indians dominate because they do such a great job at scouting and talent evaluation. At the same time, would teams like the Red Sox and Yankees lose 100 games every year because they can't buy the best talent anymore. Would there be alot more change year to year in who the top teams are?What do you guys think?

I'm a Yankee fan, and I agree that a cap should be in place. However, there are plently of low budget teams that make a LOT of $$$, but owners choose not to spend it on players, rather they stuff their pockets. Don't blame George - yes he makes a lot of $$$, but he spends a lot on players because he's dedicated to winning. You can't say the same about many other owners in the league.

Don't make it sound like the difference in profits are close between the Yankees and small market teams. Even if successful small market teams invested most of their profits in players, they wouldn't sniff "George" territory. It's plain and simple, without a cap, the division between the "haves" and the "have nots" is wider than what it would be with a cap.

 

[Wrigley]

It would look more like the NFL.Much more diversity.

No way....MLB has players from DR, Puerto Rico, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico and a number of other countries. I doubt the NFL has that much diversity.

OOOPpppsParity is what I was trying to say......(I got up way to early this morning)

 

[ceo3west]

I have always wondered how different the landscape of baseball would be if a salary cap was in place. Would teams like the A's and Indians dominate because they do such a great job at scouting and talent evaluation. At the same time, would teams like the Red Sox and Yankees lose 100 games every year because they can't buy the best talent anymore. Would there be alot more change year to year in who the top teams are?What do you guys think?

I'm a Yankee fan, and I agree that a cap should be in place. However, there are plently of low budget teams that make a LOT of $$$, but owners choose not to spend it on players, rather they stuff their pockets. Don't blame George - yes he makes a lot of $$$, but he spends a lot on players because he's dedicated to winning. You can't say the same about many other owners in the league.

Don't make it sound like the difference in profits are close between the Yankees and small market teams. Even if successful small market teams invested most of their profits in players, they wouldn't sniff "George" territory. It's plain and simple, without a cap, the division between the "haves" and the "have nots" is wider than what it would be with a cap.

I'm not denying that the gap is wider without a cap, but there is no denying that there are small market owners who generate big profits but simply aren't passionate about winning and won't spend money. Too many small market clubs use the gap as an excuse for not having a winning ballclub, when the fact is that ownership has left them high & dry. These very same owners are the ones who are not pushing for a cap. Why? Because under this system they are getting a significant amount of revenue but don't have to explain to their fans why they're not spending up to a salary cap. Under this system, they can spend little and tell their fans that they system is broken and can't afford to build a winning ballclub. Those are the facts.

 

[Steelers4Life]

I have always wondered how different the landscape of baseball would be if a salary cap was in place. Would teams like the A's and Indians dominate because they do such a great job at scouting and talent evaluation. At the same time, would teams like the Red Sox and Yankees lose 100 games every year because they can't buy the best talent anymore. Would there be alot more change year to year in who the top teams are?What do you guys think?

I'm a Yankee fan, and I agree that a cap should be in place. However, there are plently of low budget teams that make a LOT of $$$, but owners choose not to spend it on players, rather they stuff their pockets. Don't blame George - yes he makes a lot of $$$, but he spends a lot on players because he's dedicated to winning. You can't say the same about many other owners in the league.

Don't make it sound like the difference in profits are close between the Yankees and small market teams. Even if successful small market teams invested most of their profits in players, they wouldn't sniff "George" territory. It's plain and simple, without a cap, the division between the "haves" and the "have nots" is wider than what it would be with a cap.

I'm not denying that the gap is wider without a cap, but there is no denying that there are small market owners who generate big profits but simply aren't passionate about winning and won't spend money. Too many small market clubs use the gap as an excuse for not having a winning ballclub, when the fact is that ownership has left them high & dry. These very same owners are the ones who are not pushing for a cap. Why? Because under this system they are getting a significant amount of revenue but don't have to explain to their fans why they're not spending up to a salary cap. Under this system, they can spend little and tell their fans that they system is broken and can't afford to build a winning ballclub. Those are the facts.

Actually, those aren't necessarily the facts, either.The Yankees ownership wouldn't be so "passionate" about winning if they didn't generate around $400 million revenues every year. If they generated half that, or even 3/4 of that, you can be sure the Yankees payroll would be right where everyone else's is.The Yankees benefit from taking advantage of the New York market, not the owner's personal wealth. Steinbrenner wouldn't be taking on a $100 million loss every year just to win if he had to invest his own personal wealth to make it happen. What you're suggested is that owners of small market teams should have to invest their own wealth into their team to compete with the revenues generated by teams like the Yankees, which is ridiculous.Team payroll is more a function of revenues generated than anything else. Some teams have poor management that makes bad decisions, but the difference is that a big market team has enough money to cover up the mistakes why they're amplified under the constraints of a limited payroll. The Yankees have made some AWFUL personnel decisions over the past 5-6 years, but they keep winning because they have a built in competitive advantage. No other teams could have sustained success making as many mistakes as the Yankees have.Do I agree with what the Marlins are doing? Not exactly, but they've won a few World Series and I expect that they'll be good again in a few years. Spending money for the sake of money is stupid, and most of that money SHOULD be invested in the minors and player development, not on a major league roster that needs a major overhaul.

 

[ceo3west]

Actually, those aren't necessarily the facts, either.The Yankees ownership wouldn't be so "passionate" about winning if they didn't generate around $400 million revenues every year. If they generated half that, or even 3/4 of that, you can be sure the Yankees payroll would be right where everyone else's is.The Yankees benefit from taking advantage of the New York market, not the owner's personal wealth. Steinbrenner wouldn't be taking on a $100 million loss every year just to win if he had to invest his own personal wealth to make it happen. What you're suggested is that owners of small market teams should have to invest their own wealth into their team to compete with the revenues generated by teams like the Yankees, which is ridiculous.Team payroll is more a function of revenues generated than anything else. Some teams have poor management that makes bad decisions, but the difference is that a big market team has enough money to cover up the mistakes why they're amplified under the constraints of a limited payroll. The Yankees have made some AWFUL personnel decisions over the past 5-6 years, but they keep winning because they have a built in competitive advantage. No other teams could have sustained success making as many mistakes as the Yankees have.Do I agree with what the Marlins are doing? Not exactly, but they've won a few World Series and I expect that they'll be good again in a few years. Spending money for the sake of money is stupid, and most of that money SHOULD be invested in the minors and player development, not on a major league roster that needs a major overhaul.

Let me clarify, again.I am not denying that the Yankees have a competitive advantage, as do other big market clubs. This is why I said I am in favor of a salary cap.But at the same time, there are small market clubs out there that spend very little of their revenue (revenue which is much larger than you think from TV, merchandise, etc.) on player salaries so that the owners can stuff their own pockets. Then they turn around and tell their fans that the system is broken.If this is the case and the system is broken, then why aren't these owners crying for a cap like NHL owners did??? The reason is because even the small market owners bring in a ton of revenue from TV, merchandise, etc. which is not the case with the NHL, and they can continue to tell their fans that they can't compete with the big boys, meanwhile they build their own personal wealth.