1A4C5A4E415B4B404D5A684F45494144064B280 wrote: I have been saying this quite a few times on this issue. The only way baseball is going to get “fixed”, is by having a true salary cap. Look at what the salary cap has done in all of the other professional sports, football, hockey, and basketball. It has brought parity. If not for the cap, many teams in cities would have ceased to exist. Teams like the Dallas Cowboys would be the Yankees, if there was no cap in football. If baseball has to shut down for a season, like hockey, and also for football, which used replacement players for a brief period, which proved to be a joke, let it happen. Small market clubs would almost cease to lose their better players to the Yankees, RedSox, and other big market teams. Teams like the Pirates today are like the Kansas City A’s of the 1950’s, a major league farm team. The Yankees got many a great young players, in return getting older vets.
Having only a cap wouldn't force owners like Nutting to spend up to it. He'd simply continue spending the way he has, even if better players are available due to the cap restriction. If a floor doesn't accompany the cap, I don't believe much will change for a franchise like the Pirates.
And I believe that the cap and floor have to be very close together. like only $20 million apart, or even less. If a cap is placed at, say, $175 million, and the floor at $125 million, the Pirates, under Nutting, will always be at the floor and would continue to remain non-competitive far more years then not.
The two go hand in hand. Of course the problem is MLB and the union doesn't really want to fix it and really doesn't need to. MLB revenues continue to grow each year . In the long view, I could see where revenues may suffer but as long as they remain healthy nothing is going to change much. If they ever get in the position that the NHL got themselves into years back then things may change. I just don't think that is going to happen any time soon.
MLB PA v Owners
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3630
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
MLB PA v Owners
Really there's a floor now (a very low one), as there's a minimum salary for a new player. But yeah I'd like the floor and ceiling to be very close together. That way the focus would be on putting together a good overall roster. I'd like the union to help out their rank-in-file at the expense of a few stars by getting a higher league minimum in exchange for a cap on the giant stars.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
MLB PA v Owners
042D2B2725480 wrote: I have been saying this quite a few times on this issue. The only way baseball is going to get “fixed”, is by having a true salary cap. Look at what the salary cap has done in all of the other professional sports, football, hockey, and basketball. It has brought parity. If not for the cap, many teams in cities would have ceased to exist. Teams like the Dallas Cowboys would be the Yankees, if there was no cap in football. If baseball has to shut down for a season, like hockey, and also for football, which used replacement players for a brief period, which proved to be a joke, let it happen. Small market clubs would almost cease to lose their better players to the Yankees, RedSox, and other big market teams. Teams like the Pirates today are like the Kansas City A’s of the 1950’s, a major league farm team. The Yankees got many a great young players, in return getting older vets.
Having only a cap wouldn't force owners like Nutting to spend up to it. He'd simply continue spending the way he has, even if better players are available due to the cap restriction. If a floor doesn't accompany the cap, I don't believe much will change for a franchise like the Pirates.
And I believe that the cap and floor have to be very close together. like only $20 million apart, or even less. If a cap is placed at, say, $175 million, and the floor at $125 million, the Pirates, under Nutting, will always be at the floor and would continue to remain non-competitive far more years then not.
The two go hand in hand. Of course the problem is MLB and the union doesn't really want to fix it and really doesn't need to. MLB revenues continue to grow each year . In the long view, I could see where revenues may suffer but as long as they remain healthy nothing is going to change much. If they ever get in the position that the NHL got themselves into years back then things may change. I just don't think that is going to happen any time soon.
This is very true. An owner like Nutting is actually off the hook to try to compete hard for a title if the status quo remains intact. He seems to be fine with doing business the way he does, taking little risk in return for league money. If he would be forced to vote for a cap that would require him to spend 25% more on players, I can pretty much guess he'd have his thumb down faster than his team fell after last year's All Star Break.
Having only a cap wouldn't force owners like Nutting to spend up to it. He'd simply continue spending the way he has, even if better players are available due to the cap restriction. If a floor doesn't accompany the cap, I don't believe much will change for a franchise like the Pirates.
And I believe that the cap and floor have to be very close together. like only $20 million apart, or even less. If a cap is placed at, say, $175 million, and the floor at $125 million, the Pirates, under Nutting, will always be at the floor and would continue to remain non-competitive far more years then not.
The two go hand in hand. Of course the problem is MLB and the union doesn't really want to fix it and really doesn't need to. MLB revenues continue to grow each year . In the long view, I could see where revenues may suffer but as long as they remain healthy nothing is going to change much. If they ever get in the position that the NHL got themselves into years back then things may change. I just don't think that is going to happen any time soon.
This is very true. An owner like Nutting is actually off the hook to try to compete hard for a title if the status quo remains intact. He seems to be fine with doing business the way he does, taking little risk in return for league money. If he would be forced to vote for a cap that would require him to spend 25% more on players, I can pretty much guess he'd have his thumb down faster than his team fell after last year's All Star Break.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3630
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
MLB PA v Owners
Just part of the reason why I think you'll never have one without the other (broader revenue sharing). Say what you will about Nutting but I'm sure he'd spend 25MM more in salary if it was required to get a bigger piece of a baseball wide TV deal. But as everyone's said nobody is interested at this point.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
MLB PA v Owners
74464A4A5E6C4F464B4E4146270 wrote: Just part of the reason why I think you'll never have one without the other (broader revenue sharing). Say what you will about Nutting but I'm sure he'd spend 25MM more in salary if it was required to get a bigger piece of a baseball wide TV deal. But as everyone's said nobody is interested at this point.
Nutting would absolutely spend $25 million more, but only if it meant he'd get more than $25 million in return. He's a businessman first and foremost.
Nutting would absolutely spend $25 million more, but only if it meant he'd get more than $25 million in return. He's a businessman first and foremost.
MLB PA v Owners
5D464B4A434F402E0 wrote: I think a salary floor is imperative. It doesn't come down to just forcing owners to pay more for the same players. If an owner was below the salary floor, he could go out and get back up players from other teams rather than just playing with LMG's and pocketing the rest. It would be good for baseball too as it would allow capable major league baseball players to play rather than sitting the bench on a team that is willing to pay more. Worse, some teams stock their farm systems up with major league ball players because guys like Nutting will not pay them. Thus, a perfectly good major league baseball players is kept in the farm system while the Pirates play with minor leaguers. There have even been players who retired because all the teams who are willing to pay are filled. So long as BOB is able to fill up a good part of his roster with LMG's and pocket the revenue sharing, he will continue to do so.
I just think it's easier said than done. As I mentioned earlier, how do you tell the Rays that they have to make additional roster moves to add payroll when they had a great season spending less than the Pirates? A few years back Houston and KC were near the bottom of MLB payrolls as they rebuilt into competitive teams. There are times a low payroll is justified in the process of rebuilding. The problem is Nutting who never gets out of that phase.
Teams that are legitimately rebuilding know that in a few years as they develop better and more expensive talent, they will see a significant increase in payroll (again, not Nutting). So the money they save in the early stages of rebuilding will be needed a few years later. If you force small market rebuilding teams to spend more before they really need to, they will probably not be able to afford their players when they become more expensive, which would gut the rebuilding process just as it should be bearing fruit. I support a salary cap but a floor is problematic and unfair to some teams. The problem is Nutting. There should be some type of MLB rule regarding revenue vs payroll to force him to open his books for MLB auditors to enforce it. There should also be more revenue sharing, similar to what Sammy proposed earlier.
---
If rebuilding is the problem, I would have no issue with spreading the floor over a 5 year period. Instead of a 100 million floor, say a $500 million floor over 5 years. Then a team could spend less than $100 million in the first year of the rebuild and more than $100 million in the last year of the rebuild. If an owner didn't want to commit $500 million over 5 years, then he should get out of baseball.
I really like the idea of "payroll averaging" in setting a payroll floor. It takes into account the rebuild cycle that most small market teams must go through in order to compete for a championship; allowing lower spending when it makes sense during that cycle, while mandating a subsequent increase to assure that a competitive stasis due to intentional underfunding doesn't occur.
As for what the the payroll floor should be, perhaps other professional sports' examples would be a good place to start a discussion. Here are a few:
NFL: 89% of Salary Cap
NBA: 90% of Salary Cap
NHL: 74% of Salary Cap
Even if MLB never institutes a salary cap, a salary floor could be based on a "league average" (mean, median, or some other method) so that the average could be used in the way the above leagues use their Caps.
I just think it's easier said than done. As I mentioned earlier, how do you tell the Rays that they have to make additional roster moves to add payroll when they had a great season spending less than the Pirates? A few years back Houston and KC were near the bottom of MLB payrolls as they rebuilt into competitive teams. There are times a low payroll is justified in the process of rebuilding. The problem is Nutting who never gets out of that phase.
Teams that are legitimately rebuilding know that in a few years as they develop better and more expensive talent, they will see a significant increase in payroll (again, not Nutting). So the money they save in the early stages of rebuilding will be needed a few years later. If you force small market rebuilding teams to spend more before they really need to, they will probably not be able to afford their players when they become more expensive, which would gut the rebuilding process just as it should be bearing fruit. I support a salary cap but a floor is problematic and unfair to some teams. The problem is Nutting. There should be some type of MLB rule regarding revenue vs payroll to force him to open his books for MLB auditors to enforce it. There should also be more revenue sharing, similar to what Sammy proposed earlier.
---
If rebuilding is the problem, I would have no issue with spreading the floor over a 5 year period. Instead of a 100 million floor, say a $500 million floor over 5 years. Then a team could spend less than $100 million in the first year of the rebuild and more than $100 million in the last year of the rebuild. If an owner didn't want to commit $500 million over 5 years, then he should get out of baseball.
I really like the idea of "payroll averaging" in setting a payroll floor. It takes into account the rebuild cycle that most small market teams must go through in order to compete for a championship; allowing lower spending when it makes sense during that cycle, while mandating a subsequent increase to assure that a competitive stasis due to intentional underfunding doesn't occur.
As for what the the payroll floor should be, perhaps other professional sports' examples would be a good place to start a discussion. Here are a few:
NFL: 89% of Salary Cap
NBA: 90% of Salary Cap
NHL: 74% of Salary Cap
Even if MLB never institutes a salary cap, a salary floor could be based on a "league average" (mean, median, or some other method) so that the average could be used in the way the above leagues use their Caps.