Depending on where you go, a salary cap in baseball is either a huge mistake or a savior of the game.
If you went up north to Boston or New York, it would be considered an enormous error, in Minnesota or Tampa Bay it would be an absolute blessing.
I believe that a salary cap would help level the playing field for most teams. Everybody is complaining about steroids destroying competitive balance, but huge payrolls do the same thing.
Consider this: the most popular sport in the country by far is football. One of the big reasons the National Football League is so popular is because for the most part, the teams are equal. People love the thrill of knowing their team is able to beat almost any other team—something that's not always provided by Major League Baseball.
In baseball, small-market teams and their fans are deprived of even the chance for a winning community. Even if a low-budget team like the Devil Rays or the Royals can build a strong foundation through their minor league clubs, once those players' contracts are up, these teams cannot afford to re-sign them, leaving them to go to the Yankees, or the other high-budget teams.
For example, Johan Santana was brought up through the Twins system. Right when he enters his prime, his contract ends, and the Twins have to look to trade him to the Red Sox and Yankees because they cannot afford the hundred-million dollars he desires.
Baseball needs a salary cap.
4 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Brandon Heikoop about 1 year ago
I entirely disagree with your article. The first thing is, the small market teams are capable of keeping their players around, revenue sharing has accomplished this if the teams are wise with the money they receive. That is, the team is intelligent enough not to handcuff themselves with ridiculous free agent contracts or trade away the farm for a chance at winning. Teams need to follow a framework, one that has been tested and proven successful by a few small market franchises.
Take this years playoffs, in the AL the Red Sox, Indians, Angels and Yankees made it, in the NL the Rockies, Diamondbacks, Cubs and Phillies made it. Depending on what you base market size on, according to cbssportsline.com 3 of the 8 teams who made the playoffs were in the bottom third of payroll - unfortunately this figure does not take into account other areas of spending, which includes international development, draft day bonus', coaching and training staff, etc.
Another take on it, a writer at The Hardball Times took on this topic today (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-case-for-competitive-imbalance/), and actually argued that MLB does a better job than other sports at being "competitively balanced". Think about it, who can you pencil in as the champion in 2008 in baseball? Who had Boston as the favorite in 2007? Who had them facing the Rockies as of August 31st? In football, teams are essentially ruled out by November 1st. In basketball and hockey, I can already list off teams, who despite a HARD CAP, are out of contention!
Lets also look at hockey specifically. Currently, each team is financially sound, however, with the 'threat' of another increase to the cap, the poorest teams are complaining about how much they are having to stretch their dollars, pinching pennies in other areas.
So does baseball need a salary cap? By no means. Do the owners need to get together and have a few discussions to ensure players are not receiving paychecks that far outweigh their value as occurred in the late 90s? Definitely! Do they also need to discuss a way to ensure that every owner is spending money, rather then pocketing it. Definitely. But a salary cap, no.
Edit Comment Cancel
jack lindberg about 1 year ago
Very emotional response but very illogical....look at the numbers...salaries are a joke...the poor teams do not normally have a chance.....period !!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Brandon Heikoop about 1 year ago
"Do not normally have a chance"
What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that the poorest teams, like the Indians, Diamondbacks and Rockies can not build teams that can endure a season and get them to the Championship series?
2006 - Playoff teams: New York Yankees, Minnesota Twins, Detroit Tigers, Oakland Athletics, New York Mets, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres and St. Louis Cardinals. Oakland, Minnesota and San Diego all fall in the bottom half of league spending, while Detroit and St. Louis missed the top 10.
2005 - Playoff teams: Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox, New York Yankees, Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres, St. Louis Cardinals, Houston Astros and Atlanta Braves. Chicago, Houston and SD are all out of the top 10. Chicago even bumped its spending up close to $20M the year after their WS and did what?
This is a three year sample in which just under half the teams to make the playoffs were not in the top 30% of league spending. Were they in the bottom 30%? Not always, but in some instances, they were close. I think a more accurate coefficient would be to determine where teams are spending their money. Teams do not have to shell out $12M a year for the Eric Milton's of the world, but they do, because they think that will make them good.
To call my response, that had evidence rather than hearsay illogical is rather sad. Please check out the facts first and read the article I sourced.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
THe small market poorest teams do make it from time to time. But when is the last time Yankees didn't make it. The small market teams build their teams, make the playoff and then Yankees come in to dismantle them. Great system. You think its a great system where a team developes a player like Santana and has absolutely no hope of keeping him. That is why NFL is the greatest league in the country you have an opportunity to keep any player you want to.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.