MLB Salary Cap (1 Viewer)

[BoulderBob]

http://www.dugoutcentral.com/blog/?p=959

In 2000 MLB had another committee headed by George Mitchell, this one called the “Blue Ribbon Panel.” (They should have had Pabst’s beer pay for the naming rights). One of Mitchell’s quotes from the report was:

Baseball’s current economic system has created a caste system in which only high revenue and high payroll clubs have a realistic opportunity to reach the post-season. That is not in the best interests of baseball fans, clubs or players.

Call me a socialist, but I believe in the essence of a "level" playing field in sport. This is, after all, simply a game. Of course, a true level playing field is a pipe dream, but I believe this would be a step in the right direction. I don't like the NFL's version, which promotes extreme parity, however the NBA's version is close to ideal, imo, and rewards the teams that can develop/spot talent. If the owners have to lock-out the players for a year or two until the proper concessions can be made, so be it...

What sayeth you?

 

[pillowpants]

http://www.dugoutcentral.com/blog/?p=959

In 2000 MLB had another committee headed by George Mitchell, this one called the “Blue Ribbon Panel.” (They should have had Pabst’s beer pay for the naming rights). One of Mitchell’s quotes from the report was:

Baseball’s current economic system has created a caste system in which only high revenue and high payroll clubs have a realistic opportunity to reach the post-season. That is not in the best interests of baseball fans, clubs or players.

Call me a socialist, but I believe in the essence of a "level" playing field in sport. This is, after all, simply a game. Of course, a true level playing field is a pipe dream, but I believe this would be a step in the right direction. I don't like the NFL's version, which promotes extreme parity, however the NBA's version is close to ideal, imo, and rewards the teams that can develop/spot talent. If the owners have to lock-out the players for a year or two until the proper concessions can be made, so be it...

What sayeth you?

I would be OK with a Salary Cap, especially if teams can use the "Larry Bird" rule and go above the cap to keep their own players. HOWEVER, you must have a MINIMUM as well and if that means contraction, so be it. What the Marlins are doing is worse for the game than what the Yankees/Red Sox are doing.

 

[Knightro]

a soft cap and a hard floor would be a good start.

It is indeed a caste system right now. Every young player is on a 6-7 year audition for the Yanks, Sox, Angels, and Mets. The fact that Sabathia cut off talks with the Indians will start the rumors of where he will go next. Can anyone outside of those 4 teams really even be rumored in talks? When the top payroll in the league last year was 220 million while the lowest was 28 million, your sport has problems.

 

[whoknew]

Obviously y'all haven't read Moneyball.

A salary cap is NEVER going to happen in baseball.

 

[Balco]

I am a Red Sox fan, and I have to say there needs to be a salary cap. The current system is pathetic. It really is.

MLB needs to at least get something started that will attempt to clean up this mess. Like the post before me, a soft cap and a hard floor would be a great 1st step.

 

[whoknew]

I am a Red Sox fan, and I have to say there needs to be a salary cap. The current system is pathetic. It really is.MLB needs to at least get something started that will attempt to clean up this mess. Like the post before me, a soft cap and a hard floor would be a great 1st step.

Why is it pathetic? What mess?

 

[Balco]

I am a Red Sox fan, and I have to say there needs to be a salary cap. The current system is pathetic. It really is.MLB needs to at least get something started that will attempt to clean up this mess. Like the post before me, a soft cap and a hard floor would be a great 1st step.

Why is it pathetic? What mess?

You don't see anything wrong with the huge disparity between team salaries? Some team owners pocket the revenue sharing $$$ and don't put it back into the team. But many of the low salary cap teams don't have the revenue that these big market teams have.

 

[whoknew]

I am a Red Sox fan, and I have to say there needs to be a salary cap. The current system is pathetic. It really is.MLB needs to at least get something started that will attempt to clean up this mess. Like the post before me, a soft cap and a hard floor would be a great 1st step.

Why is it pathetic? What mess?

You don't see anything wrong with the huge disparity between team salaries? Some team owners pocket the revenue sharing $$$ and don't put it back into the team. But many of the low salary cap teams don't have the revenue that these big market teams have.

They don't have the same money, but that doesn't mean they can't compete. They can. They just have to be smart and stop wasting money on signing the Freddy Sanchezes for the world to long term contracts.

 

[Road Warriors]

I am a Red Sox fan, and I have to say there needs to be a salary cap. The current system is pathetic. It really is.MLB needs to at least get something started that will attempt to clean up this mess. Like the post before me, a soft cap and a hard floor would be a great 1st step.

Why is it pathetic? What mess?

For about 16 - 20 teams, your postseason hopes end in Spring training. Thats pathetic. I am also a Red Sox fan, and get to enjoy each season knowing that they will have a very strong chance to play in the post season every year. Interest in baseball will continue to diminish if the league doesn't do something to level the playing field so that maybe half the league has a shot. The big downfall for baseball is that it is extremely regional, interestwise, and there is no huge national TV deal to share revenue, which is why the Yankees (YES network) and the Red Sox (NESN) rake in huge revenues outside of the baseball organization, and can pay whatever they want to acquire talent. I don't know that there will ever be a system found that reasonalby shares revenues.Right now, there is a luxury tax. That money flows back to the lower tier teams. Unfortunately, several of those teams pocket the cash and put lesser product on the field. Maybe the first step here is to keep the luxury tax in place ( perhaps make it a bit harsher to build the pool ) and put a hard floor in place. Make receiving any money from the luxury tax pool contingent on spending a minimum team salary. It might help.

 

[whoknew]

Paul Volker was also on that Blue Ribbon Panel.

From Moneyball:

There was something to be said for these arguments but there was also something to be said against them, and, according to two people who watched the proceedings, only one commissioner was willing to say it: Paul Volcker. Volcker was also the only commissioner with a financial background. To the growing annoyance of the others, he kept asking two provocative questions:

1. If poor teams were in such dire financial condition, why did rich guys keep paying higher prices to buy them?

2. If poor teams had no hope, how did the Oakland A's, with the second lowest payroll in all of baseball, win so many games?

The owners didn't have a good answer to the first question, but to answer the second they dragged in Billy Beane to explain himself. The odd thing was that the previous season, 1999, the A's had finished 87-75 and missed the play-offs. Still, they had improved dramatically from 1998, Billy's first year on the job, when they'd gone 74-88. And they were looking even stronger in 2000. Volcker smelled a rat. If results in pro baseball were so clearly determined by financial resources, how could there be even a single exception? How could a poor team improve so dramatically? Paul DePodesta wrote Billy Beane's presentation and Billy flew off to New York to explain to Volcker why he was a fluke. He was happy to do it. He hadn't the slightest interest in stopping the Blue Rib-bon Panel from concluding that his life was unfair. He'd be delighted to see the cost of players constrained, or, even better, the Yankees made to give him some of their money. When he got up before the panel, Billy flashed a slide up on the overhead projector. It read:

"MAJOR LEAGUE"

* Movie about the hapless Cleveland Indians

In order to assemble a losing team, the owner distributes a list of players to be invited to spring training. The baseball executives say that most of these players are way past their prime. Fans see the list in the paper and remark, "I've never even heard of half these guys."

Our situation closely resembles the movie.

When it suited his purposes Billy could throw the best pity party this side of the Last Supper. He told the Blue Ribbon Panel that the Oakland A's inability to afford famous stars meant that no matter how well the team performed, the fans stayed away-which was the opposite of the truth. All the A's marketing studies showed that the main thing fans cared about was winning. Win with nobodies and the fans showed up, and the nobodies became stars; lose with stars and the fans stayed home, and the stars became nobodies. Assembling nobodies into a ruthlessly efficient machine for winning baseball games, and watching them become stars, was one of the pleasures of running a poor baseball team.

Billy also told the Blue Ribbon Panel that his inability to pay the going rate for baseball players meant that his success was likely to be ephemeral. It might have been what they wanted to hear but it wasn't what he believed. What he believed was what Paul Volcker seemed to suspect, that the market for baseball players was so inefficient, and the general grasp of sound baseball strategy so weak, that superior management could still run circles around taller piles of cash. He then went out and created more evidence in support of his belief. Having won 87 games in 1999, the Oakland A's went on to win 91 games in 2000, and an astonishing 102 games in 2001, and made the play-offs both years.

They weren't getting worse, they were getting better. The rapidly expanding difference between the size of everyone else's money pile and Oakland's had no apparent effect. Each year the Oakland A's seemed more the financial underdog and each year they won more games. Maybe they were just lucky. Or maybe they knew something other people didn't. Maybe they were, as they privately thought, becoming more efficient. When, in 2001, for the second year in a row, they lost to the Yankees in the fifth and deciding game of the play-offs, the Oakland front office was certain that theirs had been the better team and that it was the Yankees who had gotten lucky-and that the Yankees front office knew it. And that some fraction of the $120 million the Yankees had paid Jason Giambi after the 2001 play-offs to lure him away from the Oakland A's was to prevent him from ever again playing for the Oakland A's.

......

The Blue Ribbon Commission had asked the wrong question. The question wasn't whether a baseball team could keep its stars even after they had finished with their six years of indentured servitude and became free agents. The question was: how did a baseball team find stars in the first place, and could it find new ones to replace the old ones it lost? How fungible were baseball players? The short answer was: a lot more fungible than the people who ran baseball teams believed.

 

[whoknew]

I am a Red Sox fan, and I have to say there needs to be a salary cap. The current system is pathetic. It really is.MLB needs to at least get something started that will attempt to clean up this mess. Like the post before me, a soft cap and a hard floor would be a great 1st step.

Why is it pathetic? What mess?

For about 16 - 20 teams, your postseason hopes end in Spring training. Thats pathetic. I am also a Red Sox fan, and get to enjoy each season knowing that they will have a very strong chance to play in the post season every year. Interest in baseball will continue to diminish if the league doesn't do something to level the playing field so that maybe half the league has a shot. The big downfall for baseball is that it is extremely regional, interestwise, and there is no huge national TV deal to share revenue, which is why the Yankees (YES network) and the Red Sox (NESN) rake in huge revenues outside of the baseball organization, and can pay whatever they want to acquire talent. I don't know that there will ever be a system found that reasonalby shares revenues.Right now, there is a luxury tax. That money flows back to the lower tier teams. Unfortunately, several of those teams pocket the cash and put lesser product on the field. Maybe the first step here is to keep the luxury tax in place ( perhaps make it a bit harsher to build the pool ) and put a hard floor in place. Make receiving any money from the luxury tax pool contingent on spending a minimum team salary. It might help.

What are you talking about downfall for baseball? Baseball is booming -- it's unbelievably healthy.First, there's no way 16-20 teams are out of it right now. It's more like 10. And second, those 10 teams should be smarter and stop their #####ing about their woes. Again stop signing Freddy Sanchez to $20 million contracts. Or Matt Morris to huge contracts. And so on and so on.

 

[Balco]

I am a Red Sox fan, and I have to say there needs to be a salary cap. The current system is pathetic. It really is.

MLB needs to at least get something started that will attempt to clean up this mess. Like the post before me, a soft cap and a hard floor would be a great 1st step.

Why is it pathetic? What mess?

For about 16 - 20 teams, your postseason hopes end in Spring training. Thats pathetic. I am also a Red Sox fan, and get to enjoy each season knowing that they will have a very strong chance to play in the post season every year. Interest in baseball will continue to diminish if the league doesn't do something to level the playing field so that maybe half the league has a shot. The big downfall for baseball is that it is extremely regional, interestwise, and there is no huge national TV deal to share revenue, which is why the Yankees (YES network) and the Red Sox (NESN) rake in huge revenues outside of the baseball organization, and can pay whatever they want to acquire talent. I don't know that there will ever be a system found that reasonalby shares revenues.

Right now, there is a luxury tax. That money flows back to the lower tier teams. Unfortunately, several of those teams pocket the cash and put lesser product on the field. Maybe the first step here is to keep the luxury tax in place ( perhaps make it a bit harsher to build the pool ) and put a hard floor in place. Make receiving any money from the luxury tax pool contingent on spending a minimum team salary. It might help.

Again stop signing Freddy Sanchez to $20 million contracts. Or Matt Morris to huge contracts. And so on and so on.

Agreed! And here are some other huge albatross contracts:Jason Giambi

JD Drew

Julio Lugo

Mike Mussina

But wait . . . these teams can weather these mistakes. Other teams can't. And other teams can't afford to keep their homegrown players due to the 15-20 mil big market clubs can throw at them (i.e. Miguel Cabrera, Johan Santana). 17 mil is 30-40 % of many teams rosters.

Look at the Brewers right now. They are assembling a great roster. See how long they can keep that team together. Sheets will be gone this year, and then others will follow. Prince Fielder hit 50 homers in his early twenties, when he hits free agency, he will be worth 20 mil a year. That is just 1 of the many young solid players they have. Think they can sign them all?

 

[whoknew]

I am a Red Sox fan, and I have to say there needs to be a salary cap. The current system is pathetic. It really is.

MLB needs to at least get something started that will attempt to clean up this mess. Like the post before me, a soft cap and a hard floor would be a great 1st step.

Why is it pathetic? What mess?

For about 16 - 20 teams, your postseason hopes end in Spring training. Thats pathetic. I am also a Red Sox fan, and get to enjoy each season knowing that they will have a very strong chance to play in the post season every year. Interest in baseball will continue to diminish if the league doesn't do something to level the playing field so that maybe half the league has a shot. The big downfall for baseball is that it is extremely regional, interestwise, and there is no huge national TV deal to share revenue, which is why the Yankees (YES network) and the Red Sox (NESN) rake in huge revenues outside of the baseball organization, and can pay whatever they want to acquire talent. I don't know that there will ever be a system found that reasonalby shares revenues.

Right now, there is a luxury tax. That money flows back to the lower tier teams. Unfortunately, several of those teams pocket the cash and put lesser product on the field. Maybe the first step here is to keep the luxury tax in place ( perhaps make it a bit harsher to build the pool ) and put a hard floor in place. Make receiving any money from the luxury tax pool contingent on spending a minimum team salary. It might help.

Again stop signing Freddy Sanchez to $20 million contracts. Or Matt Morris to huge contracts. And so on and so on.

Agreed! And here are some other huge albatross contracts:Jason Giambi

JD Drew

Julio Lugo

Mike Mussina

But wait . . . these teams can weather these mistakes. Other teams can't. And other teams can't afford to keep their homegrown players due to the 15-20 mil big market clubs can throw at them (i.e. Miguel Cabrera, Johan Santana). 17 mil is 30-40 % of many teams rosters.

Look at the Brewers right now. They are assembling a great roster. See how long they can keep that team together. Sheets will be gone this year, and then others will follow. Prince Fielder hit 50 homers in his early twenties, when he hits free agency, he will be worth 20 mil a year. That is just 1 of the many young solid players they have. Think they can sign them all?

I totally agree that some teams have to be smarter than others. Of course the Yanks can make more mistakes than the Bucs. So what? So be smart. It's not that hard.So Sheets is ready to leave -- either trade him or let him leave and get 2 first round draft picks. If MIL is smart, they'll be just fine because they have a good base. Can they sign them all? Probably not. So trade them for lots of young talent and keep recycling.

And it's not like they can't sign anyone. They have a nice new ballpark, there's tons or revenue sharing and brats are like $6 a piece there.

 

[Balco]

I am a Red Sox fan, and I have to say there needs to be a salary cap. The current system is pathetic. It really is.

MLB needs to at least get something started that will attempt to clean up this mess. Like the post before me, a soft cap and a hard floor would be a great 1st step.

Why is it pathetic? What mess?

For about 16 - 20 teams, your postseason hopes end in Spring training. Thats pathetic. I am also a Red Sox fan, and get to enjoy each season knowing that they will have a very strong chance to play in the post season every year. Interest in baseball will continue to diminish if the league doesn't do something to level the playing field so that maybe half the league has a shot. The big downfall for baseball is that it is extremely regional, interestwise, and there is no huge national TV deal to share revenue, which is why the Yankees (YES network) and the Red Sox (NESN) rake in huge revenues outside of the baseball organization, and can pay whatever they want to acquire talent. I don't know that there will ever be a system found that reasonalby shares revenues.

Right now, there is a luxury tax. That money flows back to the lower tier teams. Unfortunately, several of those teams pocket the cash and put lesser product on the field. Maybe the first step here is to keep the luxury tax in place ( perhaps make it a bit harsher to build the pool ) and put a hard floor in place. Make receiving any money from the luxury tax pool contingent on spending a minimum team salary. It might help.

Again stop signing Freddy Sanchez to $20 million contracts. Or Matt Morris to huge contracts. And so on and so on.

Agreed! And here are some other huge albatross contracts:Jason Giambi

JD Drew

Julio Lugo

Mike Mussina

But wait . . . these teams can weather these mistakes. Other teams can't. And other teams can't afford to keep their homegrown players due to the 15-20 mil big market clubs can throw at them (i.e. Miguel Cabrera, Johan Santana). 17 mil is 30-40 % of many teams rosters.

Look at the Brewers right now. They are assembling a great roster. See how long they can keep that team together. Sheets will be gone this year, and then others will follow. Prince Fielder hit 50 homers in his early twenties, when he hits free agency, he will be worth 20 mil a year. That is just 1 of the many young solid players they have. Think they can sign them all?

I totally agree that some teams have to be smarter than others. Of course the Yanks can make more mistakes than the Bucs. So what? So be smart. It's not that hard.So Sheets is ready to leave -- either trade him or let him leave and get 2 first round draft picks. If MIL is smart, they'll be just fine because they have a good base. Can they sign them all? Probably not. So trade them for lots of young talent and keep recycling.

And it's not like they can't sign anyone. They have a nice new ballpark, there's tons or revenue sharing and brats are like $6 a piece there.

Wait, so let me get this straight . . . You think that, sure the Yankees/Sox/Mets can make several mistakes, but the smaller markets just have to be smarter? Ok.

If you think a team like the Pirates are not in a significant disadvantage when compared to the big market/revenue generating clubs, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

And finding prospects isn't so easy. The Brewers can't just assume they will get another Ben Sheets in the draft when he leaves, or get just as good a prospect in a trade.

Baseball is a mess.

 

[whoknew]

I am a Red Sox fan, and I have to say there needs to be a salary cap. The current system is pathetic. It really is.

MLB needs to at least get something started that will attempt to clean up this mess. Like the post before me, a soft cap and a hard floor would be a great 1st step.

Why is it pathetic? What mess?

For about 16 - 20 teams, your postseason hopes end in Spring training. Thats pathetic. I am also a Red Sox fan, and get to enjoy each season knowing that they will have a very strong chance to play in the post season every year. Interest in baseball will continue to diminish if the league doesn't do something to level the playing field so that maybe half the league has a shot. The big downfall for baseball is that it is extremely regional, interestwise, and there is no huge national TV deal to share revenue, which is why the Yankees (YES network) and the Red Sox (NESN) rake in huge revenues outside of the baseball organization, and can pay whatever they want to acquire talent. I don't know that there will ever be a system found that reasonalby shares revenues.

Right now, there is a luxury tax. That money flows back to the lower tier teams. Unfortunately, several of those teams pocket the cash and put lesser product on the field. Maybe the first step here is to keep the luxury tax in place ( perhaps make it a bit harsher to build the pool ) and put a hard floor in place. Make receiving any money from the luxury tax pool contingent on spending a minimum team salary. It might help.

Again stop signing Freddy Sanchez to $20 million contracts. Or Matt Morris to huge contracts. And so on and so on.

Agreed! And here are some other huge albatross contracts:Jason Giambi

JD Drew

Julio Lugo

Mike Mussina

But wait . . . these teams can weather these mistakes. Other teams can't. And other teams can't afford to keep their homegrown players due to the 15-20 mil big market clubs can throw at them (i.e. Miguel Cabrera, Johan Santana). 17 mil is 30-40 % of many teams rosters.

Look at the Brewers right now. They are assembling a great roster. See how long they can keep that team together. Sheets will be gone this year, and then others will follow. Prince Fielder hit 50 homers in his early twenties, when he hits free agency, he will be worth 20 mil a year. That is just 1 of the many young solid players they have. Think they can sign them all?

I totally agree that some teams have to be smarter than others. Of course the Yanks can make more mistakes than the Bucs. So what? So be smart. It's not that hard.So Sheets is ready to leave -- either trade him or let him leave and get 2 first round draft picks. If MIL is smart, they'll be just fine because they have a good base. Can they sign them all? Probably not. So trade them for lots of young talent and keep recycling.

And it's not like they can't sign anyone. They have a nice new ballpark, there's tons or revenue sharing and brats are like $6 a piece there.

Wait, so let me get this straight . . . You think that, sure the Yankees/Sox/Mets can make several mistakes, but the smaller markets just have to be smarter? Ok.

If you think a team like the Pirates are not in a significant disadvantage when compared to the big market/revenue generating clubs, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

And finding prospects isn't so easy. The Brewers can't just assume they will get another Ben Sheets in the draft when he leaves, or get just as good a prospect in a trade.

Baseball is a mess.

I'm not saying that BOS/NYY don't have an advantage over Pitt. Of course they do.What I am saying is Pitt (and their fans) need to stop using this as an excuse. Even at this disadvantage, they can still easily compete. They just have to be smart.

And there is SO much information out there now, that finding a prospect is a heck of a lot easier than it's ever been.

Basically I'm saying that your belief that "baseball is a mess" is just not true. At all. Baseball is EXTREMELY healthy and wealthy.

 

[thecatch]

I totally agree that some teams have to be smarter than others. Of course the Yanks can make more mistakes than the Bucs. So what? So be smart. It's not that hard.So Sheets is ready to leave -- either trade him or let him leave and get 2 first round draft picks. If MIL is smart, they'll be just fine because they have a good base. Can they sign them all? Probably not. So trade them for lots of young talent and keep recycling. And it's not like they can't sign anyone. They have a nice new ballpark, there's tons or revenue sharing and brats are like $6 a piece there.

Why should the Yankees/Red Sox be allowed to throw money around, give out all sorts of terrible contracts, do very little to develop young talent, and still be 2 of the only 5-6 legitimate contenders year in and year out? How is it fair that the A's have to avoid making a single mistake, draft and develop players better than 90% of their peers, and make better trades than 90% of their peers, in order to be competitive half the time? And the other half of the time, they are fielding a minor league team that no mainstream fan is going to pay to watch.Arguing that the smaller market teams should be "smart" and regularly draft all stars, fleece other teams of their prospects, and make flawless contractual decisions is an exceptionally weak rationalization of the current system.

 

[whoknew]

I totally agree that some teams have to be smarter than others. Of course the Yanks can make more mistakes than the Bucs. So what? So be smart. It's not that hard.So Sheets is ready to leave -- either trade him or let him leave and get 2 first round draft picks. If MIL is smart, they'll be just fine because they have a good base. Can they sign them all? Probably not. So trade them for lots of young talent and keep recycling. And it's not like they can't sign anyone. They have a nice new ballpark, there's tons or revenue sharing and brats are like $6 a piece there.

Why should the Yankees/Red Sox be allowed to throw money around, give out all sorts of terrible contracts, do very little to develop young talent, and still be 2 of the only 5-6 legitimate contenders year in and year out? How is it fair that the A's have to avoid making a single mistake, draft and develop players better than 90% of their peers, and make better trades than 90% of their peers, in order to be competitive half the time? And the other half of the time, they are fielding a minor league team that no mainstream fan is going to pay to watch.Arguing that the smaller market teams should be "smart" and regularly draft all stars, fleece other teams of their prospects, and make flawless contractual decisions is an exceptionally weak rationalization of the current system.

Well they have a bigger fan base, traditionally have been more successful and market better. So why should they have to give their money to cheap owners who do a ####ty job? And 5-6 legit contenders? Are you joking?

 

[whoknew]

Oh and saying BOS/NYY don't build up their farm system is laughable. They just use it as trade bait.

 

[thecatch]

I totally agree that some teams have to be smarter than others. Of course the Yanks can make more mistakes than the Bucs. So what? So be smart. It's not that hard.So Sheets is ready to leave -- either trade him or let him leave and get 2 first round draft picks. If MIL is smart, they'll be just fine because they have a good base. Can they sign them all? Probably not. So trade them for lots of young talent and keep recycling. And it's not like they can't sign anyone. They have a nice new ballpark, there's tons or revenue sharing and brats are like $6 a piece there.

Why should the Yankees/Red Sox be allowed to throw money around, give out all sorts of terrible contracts, do very little to develop young talent, and still be 2 of the only 5-6 legitimate contenders year in and year out? How is it fair that the A's have to avoid making a single mistake, draft and develop players better than 90% of their peers, and make better trades than 90% of their peers, in order to be competitive half the time? And the other half of the time, they are fielding a minor league team that no mainstream fan is going to pay to watch.Arguing that the smaller market teams should be "smart" and regularly draft all stars, fleece other teams of their prospects, and make flawless contractual decisions is an exceptionally weak rationalization of the current system.

Well they have a bigger fan base, traditionally have been more successful and market better. So why should they have to give their money to cheap owners who do a ####ty job? And 5-6 legit contenders? Are you joking?

So the official MLB position is/should be: "We know you smaller market teams are at a huge disadvantage simply because your geographic location. Deal with it... you'll just have to be that much better than them?" Pretty lame. Especially since the other major professional sports don't give the finger to half their franchises like that.They have bigger fan bases because of location, traditionally have been more successful because of money, and marketing goes hand in hand with that last point. Teams that are just pocketing this cash and not improving themselves are just as much a part of the problem, I agree.

 

[thecatch]

Oh and saying BOS/NYY don't build up their farm system is laughable. They just use it as trade bait.

A few years ago NYY had one of the worst in the league. And this is another area where their financial resources help them. Of course, nobody cared because they were still winning 90 games. Not a luxury some other clubs have.Basically, is the current system workable? Yeah, it's functional. Is it a good, competitive system for everyone involved that best promotes the interests of the sport? Absolutely not.

 

[whoknew]

Oh and saying BOS/NYY don't build up their farm system is laughable. They just use it as trade bait.

A few years ago NYY had one of the worst in the league. And this is another area where their financial resources help them.

So did Detroit. Then they built it up and then traded it all away. It's cyclical. Oakland had a great farm system, then it cratered and now Beane is restocking it.There is enough revenue sharing currently to pay for everyone's draft every year.

 

[pillowpants]

I totally agree that some teams have to be smarter than others. Of course the Yanks can make more mistakes than the Bucs. So what? So be smart. It's not that hard.

So Sheets is ready to leave -- either trade him or let him leave and get 2 first round draft picks. If MIL is smart, they'll be just fine because they have a good base. Can they sign them all? Probably not. So trade them for lots of young talent and keep recycling.

And it's not like they can't sign anyone. They have a nice new ballpark, there's tons or revenue sharing and brats are like $6 a piece there.

Why should the Yankees/Red Sox be allowed to throw money around, give out all sorts of terrible contracts, do very little to develop young talent, and still be 2 of the only 5-6 legitimate contenders year in and year out? How is it fair that the A's have to avoid making a single mistake, draft and develop players better than 90% of their peers, and make better trades than 90% of their peers, in order to be competitive half the time? And the other half of the time, they are fielding a minor league team that no mainstream fan is going to pay to watch.

Arguing that the smaller market teams should be "smart" and regularly draft all stars, fleece other teams of their prospects, and make flawless contractual decisions is an exceptionally weak rationalization of the current system.

Have you paid attention this offseason? The Yanks and Sox are using a "small market" approach to the way they are building their teams after their latest runs.

 

[thecatch]

Have you paid attention this offseason? The Yanks and Sox are using a "small market" approach to the way they are building their teams after their latest runs.

How much did they resign A-Rod for just out of curiousity?

 

[Balco]

Oh and saying BOS/NYY don't build up their farm system is laughable. They just use it as trade bait.

A few years ago NYY had one of the worst in the league. And this is another area where their financial resources help them. Of course, nobody cared because they were still winning 90 games. Not a luxury some other clubs have.Basically, is the current system workable? Yeah, it's functional. Is it a good, competitive system for everyone involved that best promotes the interests of the sport? Absolutely not.

Lets not even get into the advantage big market/high revenue teams have in the draft. Top 10 players slip in the draft because of signability issues. Then the teams with the $$$ to throw around get great players in the late 1st and 2nd rounds, and just throw millions at these players. Happened with JD Drew, Rick Ankiel, and countless others. I think the Tigers took advantage this past year. Tiger Fans? I could be wrong, though.And now how about the foreign "free agents"? The players that get money thrown at them as 16-17 year olds if they show any hint of ability? I am talking millions. Who shells out for these players? 99 % of the time it is the big market teams. Dice K was a rookie, but why wasn't he in the draft? The NBA does it this way. Why not MLB?

 

[pillowpants]

Have you paid attention this offseason? The Yanks and Sox are using a "small market" approach to the way they are building their teams after their latest runs.

How much did they resign A-Rod for just out of curiousity?

Retaining their talents is the advantage they have over most teams, but how has the "Sign every FA available, cost be damned" approach been for the Yanks since 2001? 1 WS appearance?The old Yanks would have traded away Hughes, Kennedy and Cabrera the moment Santana became available. I'm liking the new direction they are taking.

 

[Balco]

Have you paid attention this offseason? The Yanks and Sox are using a "small market" approach to the way they are building their teams after their latest runs.

How much did they resign A-Rod for just out of curiousity?

Another And how much did my Red Sox pay for an aging pitcher, who they might have known had some health issues? Couldn't be for more than 4 or 5 mil, right? Mike Lowell came back on the cheap as well, I am pretty sure.The Yanks definitely went the small market approcah too. They re-signed A Rod to a small extension, they exercised a very small option on Bobby Abreau (what was it 3, 4 million?) and brought back an older left handed pitcher on the cheap. I think his name was Petitte and they signed him real cheap.Please.

 

[pillowpants]

Have you paid attention this offseason? The Yanks and Sox are using a "small market" approach to the way they are building their teams after their latest runs.

How much did they resign A-Rod for just out of curiousity?

Another And how much did my Red Sox pay for an aging pitcher, who they might have known had some health issues? Couldn't be for more than 4 or 5 mil, right? Mike Lowell came back on the cheap as well, I am pretty sure.The Yanks definitely went the small market approcah too. They re-signed A Rod to a small extension, they exercised a very small option on Bobby Abreau (what was it 3, 4 million?) and brought back an older left handed pitcher on the cheap. I think his name was Petitte and they signed him real cheap.Please.

The only outrageous contract was to A-Rod in all of that. Abreu, Pettitte, Schilling, and Lowell were all their own FA's, IIRC. They didn't unfairly raid the stables of the small market teams, did they?

 

[Balco]

Have you paid attention this offseason? The Yanks and Sox are using a "small market" approach to the way they are building their teams after their latest runs.

How much did they resign A-Rod for just out of curiousity?

Another And how much did my Red Sox pay for an aging pitcher, who they might have known had some health issues? Couldn't be for more than 4 or 5 mil, right? Mike Lowell came back on the cheap as well, I am pretty sure.

The Yanks definitely went the small market approcah too. They re-signed A Rod to a small extension, they exercised a very small option on Bobby Abreau (what was it 3, 4 million?) and brought back an older left handed pitcher on the cheap. I think his name was Petitte and they signed him real cheap.

Please.

The only outrageous contract was to A-Rod in all of that. Abreu, Pettitte, Schilling, and Lowell were all their own FA's, IIRC. They didn't unfairly raid the stables of the small market teams, did they?

Agreed. And it was beautiful to see Minnesota resigning their homegrown player Johan Santana, and Florida being able to afford to keep their homegrown player Miguel Cabrera. The Yankees and Red Sox could have kept any of their pending free agents, at any cost. It's a luxury 90 % of MLB teams can't afford.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Oh and saying BOS/NYY don't build up their farm system is laughable. They just use it as trade bait.

A few years ago NYY had one of the worst in the league. And this is another area where their financial resources help them.

So did Detroit. Then they built it up and then traded it all away. It's cyclical. Oakland had a great farm system, then it cratered and now Beane is restocking it.There is enough revenue sharing currently to pay for everyone's draft every year.

LOL, it's cyclical in that the small market teams HAVE to be smart, build, and make a short run and then rebuild again. There's nothing cyclical about it when the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets can just go out and reload every year through free agency AND the they have the rarely discussed advantage of spending more money on prospect development, scouting, and international signings. The big market teams cover up mistakes by spending more. The small market teams don't have that option, so mistakes are amplified. People used to love to talk about all the Yankees' home grown talent, but no one ever talked about how they wouldn't have been able to keep at least half of them if their payroll was normal.Revenue sharing isn't going to bridge the $200 million revenue difference between teams like the Yankees and the Pirates. It can't fix all the problems in the draft, in the minors, and at the major league level also. You laugh about the Freddy Sanchez deal, but that was a smart move... it bought out 2 years of arbitration at a reasonable price ($11 million) and created a 3rd option year that won't be picked up if his play declines. The Matt Morris thing? That was dumb.No doubt that the Pirates front office has made a lot of mistakes in the past. Also no doubt in my mind that the organization has cleaned house and really has a new sense of direction this offseason for the first time in a long time, but that's a different story.

 

[whoknew]

To dispel the "nobody has a shot" theory -- teams that clearly have a shot at the playoffs:

NL EAST

NYM

PHI

ATL -- probably need some breaks, but certainly plausible.

NL CENT

CHI

MIL

CIN -- again need some breaks, but it is certainly possible

NL WEST

Everyone but SF

AL EAST

NYY

BOS

TOR -- another team that needs some luck, but not out of the question

TB -- not this year, but look out in 2010!

AL CENT

CLE

DET

I'd be surprised if anyone else made a run.

AL WEST

LAA

SEA

TEX -- maybe -- most likely a longshot, but it is possible

So there you go, 18 teams that have a realistic shot this year. That's pretty darn good.

 

[whoknew]

Oh and saying BOS/NYY don't build up their farm system is laughable. They just use it as trade bait.

A few years ago NYY had one of the worst in the league. And this is another area where their financial resources help them.

So did Detroit. Then they built it up and then traded it all away. It's cyclical. Oakland had a great farm system, then it cratered and now Beane is restocking it.There is enough revenue sharing currently to pay for everyone's draft every year.

LOL, it's cyclical in that the small market teams HAVE to be smart, build, and make a short run and then rebuild again. There's nothing cyclical about it when the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets can just go out and reload every year through free agency AND the they have the rarely discussed advantage of spending more money on prospect development, scouting, and international signings. The big market teams cover up mistakes by spending more. The small market teams don't have that option, so mistakes are amplified. People used to love to talk about all the Yankees' home grown talent, but no one ever talked about how they wouldn't have been able to keep at least half of them if their payroll was normal.Revenue sharing isn't going to bridge the $200 million revenue difference between teams like the Yankees and the Pirates. It can't fix all the problems in the draft, in the minors, and at the major league level also. You laugh about the Freddy Sanchez deal, but that was a smart move... it bought out 2 years of arbitration at a reasonable price ($11 million) and created a 3rd option year that won't be picked up if his play declines. The Matt Morris thing? That was dumb.No doubt that the Pirates front office has made a lot of mistakes in the past. Also no doubt in my mind that the organization has cleaned house and really has a new sense of direction this offseason for the first time in a long time, but that's a different story.

Farm systems are cyclical. That was the point. But the smart teams from smaller markets can trade their expensive guys to the Yankees and Red Sox and Mets and Cubs and White Sox and Angels and so on and so on and build up their farm systems. Yes they can't buy all the free agents. But they can still build a winner. Just in a different way. Complaining about money is just a crutch bad GMs use.And we've discussed this in the other thread but Freddy Sanchez is just a pretty average ballplayer (OPS+ 103 last year). And he's CERTAINLY not worth the contract they have him. He's 29 -- this is the best you're going to get. This is the kind of signing that wastes about $4 million per year.* I do admit, though, that it's certainly not the worst signing the Bucs have ever made. It's not as bad as if they keep Dougie M on the roster for up to $1.5 million. And it's not like the Bucs are the only one to make these dumb signings -- remember how the Nats gave Dmitri Young that big contract last year instead of trading him at his peak value? That was dumb. REALLY dumb. MUCH dumber than the Freddy signing.*That's a complete estimate on my part.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Oh and saying BOS/NYY don't build up their farm system is laughable. They just use it as trade bait.

A few years ago NYY had one of the worst in the league. And this is another area where their financial resources help them.

So did Detroit. Then they built it up and then traded it all away. It's cyclical. Oakland had a great farm system, then it cratered and now Beane is restocking it.There is enough revenue sharing currently to pay for everyone's draft every year.

LOL, it's cyclical in that the small market teams HAVE to be smart, build, and make a short run and then rebuild again. There's nothing cyclical about it when the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets can just go out and reload every year through free agency AND the they have the rarely discussed advantage of spending more money on prospect development, scouting, and international signings. The big market teams cover up mistakes by spending more. The small market teams don't have that option, so mistakes are amplified. People used to love to talk about all the Yankees' home grown talent, but no one ever talked about how they wouldn't have been able to keep at least half of them if their payroll was normal.Revenue sharing isn't going to bridge the $200 million revenue difference between teams like the Yankees and the Pirates. It can't fix all the problems in the draft, in the minors, and at the major league level also. You laugh about the Freddy Sanchez deal, but that was a smart move... it bought out 2 years of arbitration at a reasonable price ($11 million) and created a 3rd option year that won't be picked up if his play declines. The Matt Morris thing? That was dumb.No doubt that the Pirates front office has made a lot of mistakes in the past. Also no doubt in my mind that the organization has cleaned house and really has a new sense of direction this offseason for the first time in a long time, but that's a different story.

Farm systems are cyclical. That was the point. But the smart teams from smaller markets can trade their expensive guys to the Yankees and Red Sox and Mets and Cubs and White Sox and Angels and so on and so on and build up their farm systems. Yes they can't buy all the free agents. But they can still build a winner. Just in a different way. Complaining about money is just a crutch bad GMs use.And we've discussed this in the other thread but Freddy Sanchez is just a pretty average ballplayer (OPS+ 103 last year). And he's CERTAINLY not worth the contract they have him. He's 29 -- this is the best you're going to get. This is the kind of signing that wastes about $4 million per year.* I do admit, though, that it's certainly not the worst signing the Bucs have ever made. It's not as bad as if they keep Dougie M on the roster for up to $1.5 million. And it's not like the Bucs are the only one to make these dumb signings -- remember how the Nats gave Dmitri Young that big contract last year instead of trading him at his peak value? That was dumb. REALLY dumb. MUCH dumber than the Freddy signing.*That's a complete estimate on my part.

Ah, so that's how it should work. I get it now. The Yankees, Red Sox, and bigger market teams should be able to stockpile high priced talent while the smaller market teams keep restocking their minor leagues and shoot for a couple year window. The bigger market teams should be able to have a great chance to compete every year while the small market teams have to build until they can't afford their best players anymore. The bigger market teams should have a much, much bigger margin for error while the small market teams should be crippled if they can't outsmart everyone else.Ridiculous.Meanwhile, the bigger market teams already have more money to spend on the minors and prospect development too. That's quite a cycle there.The Freddy Sanchez signing was a good one... 2 years, 11 million dollars for a 2B who will bat between .300 and .330. That's what it amounts to. Heck, Felipe Lopez just got $4 million in arbitration and he's battling for playing time.Like it's been said.. the Yankees have made a ton of dumb signings... the difference is that their revenue streams give them the luxury of just spending more money to make up for it.

 

[pillowpants]

Have you paid attention this offseason? The Yanks and Sox are using a "small market" approach to the way they are building their teams after their latest runs.

How much did they resign A-Rod for just out of curiousity?

Another And how much did my Red Sox pay for an aging pitcher, who they might have known had some health issues? Couldn't be for more than 4 or 5 mil, right? Mike Lowell came back on the cheap as well, I am pretty sure.

The Yanks definitely went the small market approcah too. They re-signed A Rod to a small extension, they exercised a very small option on Bobby Abreau (what was it 3, 4 million?) and brought back an older left handed pitcher on the cheap. I think his name was Petitte and they signed him real cheap.

Please.

The only outrageous contract was to A-Rod in all of that. Abreu, Pettitte, Schilling, and Lowell were all their own FA's, IIRC. They didn't unfairly raid the stables of the small market teams, did they?

Agreed. And it was beautiful to see Minnesota resigning their homegrown player Johan Santana, and Florida being able to afford to keep their homegrown player Miguel Cabrera. The Yankees and Red Sox could have kept any of their pending free agents, at any cost. It's a luxury 90 % of MLB teams can't afford.

The Twins offered to extend Santana for $20million/per for 5 years. That is not exactly as small market move.The Marlins should be contracted, plain and simple. Miami makes Atlanta look like Boston. It is an absolute joke that they will get paid more in Luxury Tax revenue than they will spend in salaries this year.

 

[Your Mother]

To dispel the "nobody has a shot" theory -- teams that clearly have a shot at the playoffs:NL EASTNYMPHIATL -- probably need some breaks, but certainly plausible.NL CENTCHIMILCIN -- again need some breaks, but it is certainly possibleNL WESTEveryone but SFAL EAST NYYBOSTOR -- another team that needs some luck, but not out of the questionTB -- not this year, but look out in 2010!AL CENTCLEDETI'd be surprised if anyone else made a run.AL WESTLAASEATEX -- maybe -- most likely a longshot, but it is possibleSo there you go, 18 teams that have a realistic shot this year. That's pretty darn good.

Some of these teams have a shot, sure, but the Yankees and Sox have bought themselves a seat at the table every season. Other teams can only sustain a playoff-caliber team for 1 year out of 3, or 4. Big difference.The great leveller, of course, is that the MLB playoffs are by and large a crapshoot, hence the 83 (?) win Cardinals taking it down a couple years ago. This gives the illusion that anyone has a chance, but really, a team has to get lucky when it's their turn, if they get a turn. The Cards' chances are significantly smaller than those of Detroit, or Boston or either NY team.

 

[whoknew]

To dispel the "nobody has a shot" theory -- teams that clearly have a shot at the playoffs:

NL EAST

NYM

PHI

ATL -- probably need some breaks, but certainly plausible.

NL CENT

CHI

MIL

CIN -- again need some breaks, but it is certainly possible

NL WEST

Everyone but SF

AL EAST

NYY

BOS

TOR -- another team that needs some luck, but not out of the question

TB -- not this year, but look out in 2010!

AL CENT

CLE

DET

I'd be surprised if anyone else made a run.

AL WEST

LAA

SEA

TEX -- maybe -- most likely a longshot, but it is possible

So there you go, 18 teams that have a realistic shot this year. That's pretty darn good.

Some of these teams have a shot, sure, but the Yankees and Sox have bought themselves a seat at the table every season. Other teams can only sustain a playoff-caliber team for 1 year out of 3, or 4. Big difference.The great leveller, of course, is that the MLB playoffs are by and large a crapshoot, hence the 83 (?) win Cardinals taking it down a couple years ago. This gives the illusion that anyone has a chance, but really, a team has to get lucky when it's their turn, if they get a turn. The Cards' chances are significantly smaller than those of Detroit, or Boston or either NY team.

That's just not true. Look at Oakland. Or how Cle has set themselves up. Or MIN before this year. Or the run the Tigers are having. Or what AZ is setting up. Or MIL. Etc.And of course, you are correct that anything can happen in the playoffs. It's just a matter of getting to the playoffs -- once you are there, anything can happen in a short series.

It's really amazing to me that so many people ##### about MLB, yet the teams are WAY more competitive than the NBA and -- at the least -- on par with the NFL.

 

[Balco]

Have you paid attention this offseason? The Yanks and Sox are using a "small market" approach to the way they are building their teams after their latest runs.

How much did they resign A-Rod for just out of curiousity?

Another And how much did my Red Sox pay for an aging pitcher, who they might have known had some health issues? Couldn't be for more than 4 or 5 mil, right? Mike Lowell came back on the cheap as well, I am pretty sure.

The Yanks definitely went the small market approcah too. They re-signed A Rod to a small extension, they exercised a very small option on Bobby Abreau (what was it 3, 4 million?) and brought back an older left handed pitcher on the cheap. I think his name was Petitte and they signed him real cheap.

Please.

The only outrageous contract was to A-Rod in all of that. Abreu, Pettitte, Schilling, and Lowell were all their own FA's, IIRC. They didn't unfairly raid the stables of the small market teams, did they?

Agreed. And it was beautiful to see Minnesota resigning their homegrown player Johan Santana, and Florida being able to afford to keep their homegrown player Miguel Cabrera. The Yankees and Red Sox could have kept any of their pending free agents, at any cost. It's a luxury 90 % of MLB teams can't afford.

The Twins offered to extend Santana for $20million/per for 5 years. That is not exactly as small market move.The Marlins should be contracted, plain and simple. Miami makes Atlanta look like Boston. It is an absolute joke that they will get paid more in Luxury Tax revenue than they will spend in salaries this year.

Let me ask then, was that speculated offer enough for Johan Santana to stay in Minnesota? Was it his fair market value? Nope. Twins couldn't afford him.

 

[Road Warriors]

To dispel the "nobody has a shot" theory -- teams that clearly have a shot at the playoffs:NL EASTNYMPHIATL -- probably need some breaks, but certainly plausible.NL CENTCHIMILCIN -- again need some breaks, but it is certainly possibleNL WESTEveryone but SFAL EAST NYYBOSTOR -- another team that needs some luck, but not out of the questionTB -- not this year, but look out in 2010!AL CENTCLEDETI'd be surprised if anyone else made a run.AL WESTLAASEATEX -- maybe -- most likely a longshot, but it is possibleSo there you go, 18 teams that have a realistic shot this year. That's pretty darn good.

Even in your 18 teams, you have caveats about 5 of them, and I'd put them as TEX, no chance. TB, no chance. TOR/slight chance ( not "realistic", but not impossible ). I'm an AL guy, so I can't speak on the NL chances. About 1/2 the league is removed from championship consideration before play starts. That is not healthy. Even if the league wide revenues are fine, as you claim, to have such a wide disparity in salary, talent, and opportunity is not healthy for competition, and as a result, for MLB as a whole.

 

[Road Warriors]

Have you paid attention this offseason? The Yanks and Sox are using a "small market" approach to the way they are building their teams after their latest runs.

How much did they resign A-Rod for just out of curiousity?

Another And how much did my Red Sox pay for an aging pitcher, who they might have known had some health issues? Couldn't be for more than 4 or 5 mil, right? Mike Lowell came back on the cheap as well, I am pretty sure.

The Yanks definitely went the small market approcah too. They re-signed A Rod to a small extension, they exercised a very small option on Bobby Abreau (what was it 3, 4 million?) and brought back an older left handed pitcher on the cheap. I think his name was Petitte and they signed him real cheap.

Please.

The only outrageous contract was to A-Rod in all of that. Abreu, Pettitte, Schilling, and Lowell were all their own FA's, IIRC. They didn't unfairly raid the stables of the small market teams, did they?

Agreed. And it was beautiful to see Minnesota resigning their homegrown player Johan Santana, and Florida being able to afford to keep their homegrown player Miguel Cabrera. The Yankees and Red Sox could have kept any of their pending free agents, at any cost. It's a luxury 90 % of MLB teams can't afford.

The Twins offered to extend Santana for $20million/per for 5 years. That is not exactly as small market move.The Marlins should be contracted, plain and simple. Miami makes Atlanta look like Boston. It is an absolute joke that they will get paid more in Luxury Tax revenue than they will spend in salaries this year.

I would love to see a hard floor tied to receiving Luxury Tax money implemented. The Luxury tax was meant to give lower revenue teams a hand up to compete, not to line obsenely weathly owner pockets with more money. Something along the lines of a minimum team payroll of 40 mill ( pick a number that works, I don't have that level of detail available ) before you are eligible to receive any distribution from the Luxury tax pool. Or, if a set dollar figure doesn't work due to varying levels of revenue, maybe a defined definition of revenues and a % of revenues spent toward player salaries as a floor.

I'd like to see the gap lessened. I'd like to see small market teams not have to be perfect in every decision to compete. And I still want to see the Red Sox win it all.

 

[whoknew]

To dispel the "nobody has a shot" theory -- teams that clearly have a shot at the playoffs:NL EASTNYMPHIATL -- probably need some breaks, but certainly plausible.NL CENTCHIMILCIN -- again need some breaks, but it is certainly possibleNL WESTEveryone but SFAL EAST NYYBOSTOR -- another team that needs some luck, but not out of the questionTB -- not this year, but look out in 2010!AL CENTCLEDETI'd be surprised if anyone else made a run.AL WESTLAASEATEX -- maybe -- most likely a longshot, but it is possibleSo there you go, 18 teams that have a realistic shot this year. That's pretty darn good.

Even in your 18 teams, you have caveats about 5 of them, and I'd put them as TEX, no chance. TB, no chance. TOR/slight chance ( not "realistic", but not impossible ). I'm an AL guy, so I can't speak on the NL chances. About 1/2 the league is removed from championship consideration before play starts. That is not healthy. Even if the league wide revenues are fine, as you claim, to have such a wide disparity in salary, talent, and opportunity is not healthy for competition, and as a result, for MLB as a whole.

People keep saying this, but it's just not true. MLB is arguably as healthy as its been in 30 years. And even if 1/2 the teams don't have much shot -- is that really different than any other sport? The NFL? Certainly the NBA has MUCH fewer teams with a shot.

 

[Road Warriors]

...About 1/2 the league is removed from championship consideration before play starts. That is not healthy. Even if the league wide revenues are fine, as you claim, to have such a wide disparity in salary, talent, and opportunity is not healthy for competition, and as a result, for MLB as a whole.

People keep saying this, but it's just not true. MLB is arguably as healthy as its been in 30 years. And even if 1/2 the teams don't have much shot -- is that really different than any other sport? The NFL? Certainly the NBA has MUCH fewer teams with a shot.

The NBA is a different beast, because so many teams make the playoffs, it is hard to remove more than a handful of teams from post-season chance to start the season, and then even those teams can get right back in the mix with one great draft or FA signing. Now, the gap between the 8 seeds in both conferences vs. the top championship contenders is large, but if the measuring stick is the ability to make the post season, I'd claim the NBA keeps about 80% of its teams in the hunt well into the season.The NFL? Every year, there are teams that are expected to be bad, really bad that get in the post season mix. And teams that are good that end up bad. There are probably no more than 4-5 teams in the NFL that truly have no shot of making the playoffs any given year. And those teams, with decent management, can turn around and become legit contenders within 1-3 years. MLB? You can rattle off 10 teams that will not be within a sniff of the wildcard by July. And those teams have virtually no chance of changing that. To turn around a franchise like KC or PIT or fill in the blank here, you will need to find low hype late development players that slip through the sights of the bigger markets and can be signed by the small guys, develop a bunch of them over a few years, and maybe have a 2-3 year window before they become arbitration eligible and too costly to keep together. Unlike the other leagues, the hill that the small market teams have to climb is steeper, and the time at the top is smaller, if you get there.

 

[Darth Cheney]

A couple of points....

A salary cap has ruined the NBA....

While I'm not opposed to increasing the percentage and lowering the level of the luxury tax...why should this be done? Baseball as a business is doing pretty darn good right now.

 

[TitusIII]

A couple of points....A salary cap has ruined the NBA....While I'm not opposed to increasing the percentage and lowering the level of the luxury tax...why should this be done? Baseball as a business is doing pretty darn good right now.

I'm not sure how the cap has ruined the NBA. Every team has the ability to sign the talent it developed. What more do you want? If we want a league with only the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/Angels, so be it...as it stands these teams will compete for the title for the rest of eternity due to their inherent advantages....the league is bunk...

 

[Darth Cheney]

A couple of points....A salary cap has ruined the NBA....While I'm not opposed to increasing the percentage and lowering the level of the luxury tax...why should this be done? Baseball as a business is doing pretty darn good right now.

I'm not sure how the cap has ruined the NBA. Every team has the ability to sign the talent it developed. What more do you want? If we want a league with only the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/Angels, so be it...as it stands these teams will compete for the title for the rest of eternity due to their inherent advantages....the league is bunk...

The cap has made it hell to get out of mediocrity. Plus it has presented incredibly stupid situations like the Jerry Stackhouse scenario where he gets traded...sits out then gets cut. As far as baseball goes.....competition is fine...with the exception of a couple of teams. While I like the idea of baseball in Pittsburgh and Kansas City...the reality is...as a business....baseball has no reason being there. The Dodgers left Brooklyn and the Giants Manhattan for greener pastures.

 

[Darth Cheney]

IMO....

1) Give us a hard salary cap floor

2) Decrease the amount in which the luxury tax kicks in.

3) Increase the percentages teams over the luxury tax have to pay.

That right there should solve most of the "problems"

 

[Road Warriors]

A couple of points....A salary cap has ruined the NBA....While I'm not opposed to increasing the percentage and lowering the level of the luxury tax...why should this be done? Baseball as a business is doing pretty darn good right now.

I'm not sure how the cap has ruined the NBA. Every team has the ability to sign the talent it developed. What more do you want? If we want a league with only the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/Angels, so be it...as it stands these teams will compete for the title for the rest of eternity due to their inherent advantages....the league is bunk...

The cap has made it hell to get out of mediocrity. Plus it has presented incredibly stupid situations like the Jerry Stackhouse scenario where he gets traded...sits out then gets cut. As far as baseball goes.....competition is fine...with the exception of a couple of teams. While I like the idea of baseball in Pittsburgh and Kansas City...the reality is...as a business....baseball has no reason being there. The Dodgers left Brooklyn and the Giants Manhattan for greener pastures.

I don't an NBA style salary cap is the answer, and its truly goofy trade restrictions are ridiculous. Case in point, the current action of the Dallas/NJ trade has Dallas signing a player out of retirement to "balance contracts" I think the trade restrictions of matching salaries ( and really bad guaranteed contracts ) make it hard to get out of mediocrity. The fact that trading for "expiring contracts" rather than talent is a typical aspect of NBA trades shows that that aspect of the NBA collective bargaining is a failure, IMO.

 

[Road Warriors]

IMO....1) Give us a hard salary cap floor2) Decrease the amount in which the luxury tax kicks in.3) Increase the percentages teams over the luxury tax have to pay.That right there should solve most of the "problems"

:X I like it. Doesn't blow up the current system, but should close the gap a bunch. Now just get the MLBPA & owners to agree, and we're good to go.

 

[Darth Cheney]

IMO....1) Give us a hard salary cap floor2) Decrease the amount in which the luxury tax kicks in.3) Increase the percentages teams over the luxury tax have to pay.That right there should solve most of the "problems"

I like it. Doesn't blow up the current system, but should close the gap a bunch. Now just get the MLBPA & owners to agree, and we're good to go.

I think the biggest problem with baseball stems between the difference between international players and American born players in regards to the draft.

 

[Wrigley]

A couple of points....

A salary cap has ruined the NBA....

While I'm not opposed to increasing the percentage and lowering the level of the luxury tax...why should this be done? Baseball as a business is doing pretty darn good right now.

I'm not sure how the cap has ruined the NBA. Every team has the ability to sign the talent it developed. What more do you want? If we want a league with only the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/Angels, so be it...as it stands these teams will compete for the title for the rest of eternity due to their inherent advantages....the league is bunk...

 

[Balco]

A couple of points....A salary cap has ruined the NBA....While I'm not opposed to increasing the percentage and lowering the level of the luxury tax...why should this be done? Baseball as a business is doing pretty darn good right now.

I'm not sure how the cap has ruined the NBA. Every team has the ability to sign the talent it developed. What more do you want? If we want a league with only the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/Angels, so be it...as it stands these teams will compete for the title for the rest of eternity due to their inherent advantages....the league is bunk...

The cap has made it hell to get out of mediocrity. Plus it has presented incredibly stupid situations like the Jerry Stackhouse scenario where he gets traded...sits out then gets cut. As far as baseball goes.....competition is fine...with the exception of a couple of teams. While I like the idea of baseball in Pittsburgh and Kansas City...the reality is...as a business....baseball has no reason being there. The Dodgers left Brooklyn and the Giants Manhattan for greener pastures.

Huh? A couple of teams?Billy Beane just had to trade away a player (Haren) who was under the A's control for 2 more years, because he knew he wouldn't be able to resign him and he would get maximum value now. The Marlins had to trade Miguel Cabrera because they knew they couldn't afford to keep him. Minnesota has to let Johan Santana go, because they can't afford him. Pittsburgh will be looking to trade Jason Bay. Milwaukee will have to trade Ben Sheets. Cleveland is going to have to let Sabathia walk. There are a ton of teams that can't keep a nucleus together.I look at the following teams that are going to get screwed:1. Milwaukee - What a group of young talent they have assembled. Prince Fielder, JJ Hardy, Ryan Braun, Corey Hart, Rickie Weeks, Bill Hall, Yovanni Gallardo. They also have Ben Sheets, a homegrown player. What are the chances they can afford to keep each player? I will tell you - zero. I would hate to be a Brewers fan. Your organization has built up an unbelievable roster of young talent. Here is the problem . . . they can't afford to keep their closer. They can't sign any veterans to complement these young guys. This is fair?2. Minnesota - They also had a solid core. Morneau, Mauer, just traded for Young, Liriano, Santana, Nathan (surrounded by a great bullpen). But they can't afford to sign a big free agent, let alone resign Santana.3. Oakland - Look at all the players they have lost because they had to trade them because of $$$, or as free agents - Giambi, Tejada, Damon, Haren, Zito, Hudson, Mulder . . . etc.It is not fair. And that is just MLB players.How about the Japanese players and their ridiculous posting fees, in addition to their contracts?Or the Latin American players who are not subject to the draft?Or the high school/college players, who have to be passed on by small market teams because they are asking for too much, only for the big market clubs to sign them to big contracts?It is a huge problem.

 

[Darth Cheney]

A couple of points....A salary cap has ruined the NBA....While I'm not opposed to increasing the percentage and lowering the level of the luxury tax...why should this be done? Baseball as a business is doing pretty darn good right now.

I'm not sure how the cap has ruined the NBA. Every team has the ability to sign the talent it developed. What more do you want? If we want a league with only the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/Angels, so be it...as it stands these teams will compete for the title for the rest of eternity due to their inherent advantages....the league is bunk...

The cap has made it hell to get out of mediocrity. Plus it has presented incredibly stupid situations like the Jerry Stackhouse scenario where he gets traded...sits out then gets cut. As far as baseball goes.....competition is fine...with the exception of a couple of teams. While I like the idea of baseball in Pittsburgh and Kansas City...the reality is...as a business....baseball has no reason being there. The Dodgers left Brooklyn and the Giants Manhattan for greener pastures.

Huh? A couple of teams?Billy Beane just had to trade away a player (Haren) who was under the A's control for 2 more years, because he knew he wouldn't be able to resign him and he would get maximum value now. The Marlins had to trade Miguel Cabrera because they knew they couldn't afford to keep him. Minnesota has to let Johan Santana go, because they can't afford him. Pittsburgh will be looking to trade Jason Bay. Milwaukee will have to trade Ben Sheets. Cleveland is going to have to let Sabathia walk. There are a ton of teams that can't keep a nucleus together.I look at the following teams that are going to get screwed:1. Milwaukee - What a group of young talent they have assembled. Prince Fielder, JJ Hardy, Ryan Braun, Corey Hart, Rickie Weeks, Bill Hall, Yovanni Gallardo. They also have Ben Sheets, a homegrown player. What are the chances they can afford to keep each player? I will tell you - zero. I would hate to be a Brewers fan. Your organization has built up an unbelievable roster of young talent. Here is the problem . . . they can't afford to keep their closer. They can't sign any veterans to complement these young guys. This is fair?2. Minnesota - They also had a solid core. Morneau, Mauer, just traded for Young, Liriano, Santana, Nathan (surrounded by a great bullpen). But they can't afford to sign a big free agent, let alone resign Santana.3. Oakland - Look at all the players they have lost because they had to trade them because of $$$, or as free agents - Giambi, Tejada, Damon, Haren, Zito, Hudson, Mulder . . . etc.It is not fair. And that is just MLB players.How about the Japanese players and their ridiculous posting fees, in addition to their contracts?Or the Latin American players who are not subject to the draft?Or the high school/college players, who have to be passed on by small market teams because they are asking for too much, only for the big market clubs to sign them to big contracts?It is a huge problem.

If there were salary caps in place....these teams with these good young ballplayers wouldn't have them all. I could understand you point better if the MLB wasn't making any money and the big clubs were smothering their competition into irrelevancy.....but they are not.....and baseball is making alot of money.