Would Yankees fans consider a salary cap now?

[CTLawGuy]

Poll question: Would Yankees fans consider a salary cap now?

I think this year, a salary cap would probably have helped the Yankees. As you know, George spent 200 million dollars on old veteran players who were once good. In exchange, he sent away most of his young talent, leaving the future pretty barren (assuming he cannot keep his team sustained from off-season free agent signings).

A salary cap would have forced George to keep some of his younger, lower priced talent, because he would not have been able to throw out 200 million dollars for old players. and then, that younger talent would be able to blossom for the future.

That's just the latest reason for why baseball should adopt a salary cap.

Here are some others:

1. Keeps the teams equal in terms of talent and thus, competitive. Its reasonable to assume that a players salary reflects the level of demand for him, which reflects his talent. Higher salary = higher talent. Teams who are equal in talent play closer, more exciting games than teams who are unbalanced in talent, in general. Having better games is good for baseball as a whole.

2. Slows the exhorbitant increase in the salaries of superstar players. If George Steinbrenner offers a pitcher an inflated $20 mil a year to keep him away from the Red Sox, then every other free agent pitcher will say "I'm just as good as that pitcher, therefore I should demand $20 million a year," or "I'm half as good as him, so I'll demand $10 million a year."

3. Cash-poor teams would be able to keep young talent past free-agency. It's frustrating to bring up a good player, just to get him to free agency and then not to be able to afford to get him back.

4. It would give poorer teams with wealthy owners more incentive to invest in their teams. The idea of poor teams being owned by rich owners and those owners not investing in them seems to be unique to baseball. The structure of baseball is partially to blame. There are 162 games (81 home games) and it is next to impossible to get into the playoffs. Baseball has the stingiest playoff cutoff of any major US sport. Fans will not follow team in large numbers, if they go long stretches without a chance of making the playoffs.

So here is what the rich owner of a revenue-poor team faces. With a salary of $40 million, your team is in last place in a 5 team division. If you invest another 20 million of your own money into the team, maybe you make it to third place instead of fifth place. At third place you don't make the playoffs, which means no increase in revenue, and essentially you are out 20 million with no gain. No wonder owners don't invest in revenue poor teams.

With a salary cap, high spending teams will be forced to cut back talent, freeing good players up. As talent becomes more balanced, the owners will see a greater gain from spending more on their teams. Maybe by spending a bit more, their team can jump from fifth to second and be in contention for the wild card, which would draw fans and revenue.

5. A salary cap would encourage shorter contracts. Players who are early on in long contracts have less incentive to play at their very best than at the end of their contracts, when teams are watching to evaluate whether to sign them. Since team will need room to maneuver from year to year (to keep from breaking the cap, they will roffer long contracts to only their very best players. As contracts get shorter, players will have a greater incentive to play at their best, and will do so more frequently.

[wtbymark]

1. you know what you get with a salary cap?

the corperatizing of the players, just look at what the sox had to do to get Schilling. Enter into a contract with Ford in order to 'afford' Schilling(sp?). If the team has the money and the city is 'into' the team (which will create money for the team), spend it. Aquire the best players in baseball, that is the objective isn't it. To put together the best team you can.

[CTLawGuy]

2. let me ask you this

Are you opposed to weight classes in wrestling? Do you think it is fair to have a 120 lb wrestler go up against a 200 lb wrestler?

Are you opposed to age restrictions on little league? Do you think it's fair to allow 14 year olds to play against 11-12 year olds?

the reason these restrictions exist is to give everyone a fair shot at success. the true measure of success is how much can you get out of the resources you have. It is not sucess if you have an unfair advantage.

[wtbymark]

3. aren't all major league players

supposed to be on equal ground (talent wise) when they enter the league. They are in the same league aren't they. Or are you sending up a little league team in sox uniforms? If i'm a manager of a team, i want to find the best short stop i can afford, period. If I can't afford Garciapara or Jeter, Waaaaaa cry me a river. Sell some more tickets. I should not use a player because he's worth too much? Do you think he's going to play for you on a AAA salary? NOT. Get a life and enjoy baseball - the Yankees are doing terribly right now, i still enjoy them. Baseball is about patients; patients in the game, in the team, in the aquisition of players, patients in the course of baseball itself, sort of like the human race - take a chill pill and smell the flowers.

[CTLawGuy]

18. they are obviously not equal talent

salaries of players range from 300k a year to 25 million a year for the very top guys.

And how do you sell more tickets without having a better team? Or do you like seeing crappy ball teams that have no chance to win?

Also, doctors are about "patients". Baseball is about patience.

What a very Republican answer you gave. "Who cares about fairness, I have mine," is essentially what you are saying.

[Hobarticus]

7. When the 200-lb wrestler's revenue-sharing pays for three 120-lb wrestlers

I don't think the 120-lb wrestlers are in a position to complain.

Baseball isn't LL. It's a business. Like it or not, if a team can afford the best players, and their city can support the team, they can do as they please. Revenue-sharing keeps all boats afloat.

When revenues go up, salaries go up. And blockbuster teams make that possible. No one complains when that revenue-sharing check comes in.

Besides, the Yankee's current record just proved your theory wrong: a bloated payroll does NOT buy a winning record. They just got beat on the road by teams whose payrolls added up together don't match theirs.

[CTLawGuy]

20. im not saying

large salary guarantees a winning record...

Though the Yankees DID win the AL East every year for the past 8 years.

the point of weight classes is that there are certain elements that should not influence a competition.

For example, the Yankees should not be allowed to mass murder the Red Sox and then claim they win by forfeit.

And are you also outraged by the limit of 25 players on a team? Don't you believe that if you can afford 50 you should be allowed to have them?

there are all kinds of restrictions on teams that are meant to ensure fairness.

[rinsd]

13. Wrong analogy.....

...because the players aren't what's in question but the team itself.

[rinsd]

4. You want to screw over labor to benefit owners.....

...because that's exactly what a salary cap does.

See the NFl and to a lessser extent the NBA.

[CTLawGuy]

5. Labor...

I would take a cap on my pay if my minimum possible salary was $300,000 a year.

Unions are for people who make $5.15 an hour, less so for people who are guaranteed 300k a year.

I dont shed tears for baseball players.

[rinsd]

8. Its a given that sympathy is hard to come buy....

....for millionaires vs. multi-millionaires.

But that doesn't change the fact that you're screwing over labor by installing a cap whose benefit is solely to management.

[CTLawGuy]

10. I dont love labor just because it's labor

I favor labor when the laborers are in need and have no power on their own.

Being a CEO is technically laboring....

A cap benefits fans as well, by making a more talent-balanced sport.

[rinsd]

11. "A cap benefits fans as well, by making a more talent-balanced sport"

How has the cap vs. smart management benefited fans?

Let's deal with the NFL because the NBA's cap is a joke.

That means dealing with non-guaranteed contracts.

[CTLawGuy]

17. it benefits fans when every team is decently competitive

that means games are closer and more exciting in general, and that draws more fan interest.

[DaveinMD]

21. baseball

is highly competitive. The game is fine. No changes are necessary.

[CTLawGuy]

22. the AL East has finished in the exact same order

for the last 8 years. Yes, everything is fine :eyes:

[DaveinMD]

25. and Minnesota

has been in the playoffs for a long time too. They aren't a big payroll team. Oakland was competitive for ages. Every team in the NL East is over 500. San Diego is in first place. Texas is nearly in first and very competitive with Anaheim. This year Toronto and Baltimore are fielding good teams with modest payrolls. You can compete if you are managed well. The Yanks are sucking with big payroll. The Marlins won the series with a low payroll. Anaheim won when they had a more modest payroll. They played the Giants that year, who also was a mid-level payroll team. The teams that always suck don't invest anything in their team or are grossly mismanaged.

[CTLawGuy]

33. minnesota plays in the weakest division ever...

don't give me that.

[DaveinMD]

34. There is always an excuse

the Central isn't so weak this year. Oakland made the postseason 5 straight years on a tight budget.

[rinsd]

30. Not true

2005 - 8 = 1997 when the O's took the div, Yanks 2nd and Boston 3rd. Kleeb will be upset ;-)

And last year, the Bluejays were last, the O's 3rd and TB was 4th.

[rinsd]

28. It does draw the bandwagon element...

...especially here in SoCal. And yes, the Yankees and Sox have had bandwagons by the boat load.

I'm not sure it that's a good thing beyond lining the owners pockets.

You're also making assumptions.

David vs. Goliath is lot more compelling than average vs. average.

If closer games and talent meant more fans watching some of the interleague matchups should have had outstanding attanedance and ratings. Outside of the big guys that didn't happen and hasn;t happened since the interleague experiment began.

Two things drive attendance/ratings rivalries and winning. Not everyone can win especially in baseball.

[DaveinMD]

6. salary caps suck

no matter the sport. There is little competitive balance in the nba. It just ensures that teams suck for long periods of time because they can't get out of guaranteed contracts. IN the NFL, it means no truly great teams and a mediocre product. The game's quality pales in comparison to what we saw in the 70s and 80s. And baseball doesn't have a competitive balance problem. Many mid and small markets teams are quite competitive.

[CTLawGuy]

9. no truly good teams in the NFL?

you must have blocked out the New England Patriots for the last 4 years...

[rinsd]

12. That same team released their hardest worker and 2nd most beloved player..

...because of the cap.

Troy Brown plays two ways, kicks ass, saves the Pats season and he gets a pink slip thanks to the cap.

[CTLawGuy]

15. so?

The diamondbacks couldn't resign Randy Johnson.

The A's got rid of their 2 best pitchers, Mulder and Hudson, thanks to not being able to resign them.

The Red Sox lost Pedro Martinez
The Cardinals lost Edgar Renteria

You think baseball players stay on the same teams forever?

It's not the cap's fault that players don't stay in one place.

[DaveinMD]

23. the cap

forces teams to get rid of all depth in football. The middle class player is screwed. That's why there is truly no great team. And NE wouldn't stack up against any of the great teams of the past.

[CTLawGuy]

24. ok

call up the teams of the past and have them come down to Gillette and let them take on the pats...

[DaveinMD]

26. the Pats

do a great job in today's system. But they just don't have the talent of those teams in the past. Those were truly great teams with depth up and down the roster. The Pats win largely because of great coaching and a great QB. That wouldn't be enough in the old days.

[rinsd]

27. Response

RJ wanted out period.

They had those guys signed already. They decided to trade 'em

Pedro wasn't a money issue in terms of not being affordable. The Sox just thought he wasn't worth it anymore because they had Schilling.

Renteria sucks anyway.

"You think baseball players stay on the same teams forever?"

Curt Flood happened before I was even born so I have grown up with transitional players. It doesn't bother me. If a team decides it can't afford a player so be it. The cap forces that decision more often than not. What about when teams could afford a plyer but they have to let him go because of his cap figure. Why has the cap caused contracts now to be huge signing bonus, basically shit pay for the first 3 years then ballooning outrageously when that player will either have to renegotiate or get cut.

Both systems are flawed but both have developed because of their structures.

If you can find a national TV deal like the NFL has than a cap is more feasible.

[DaveinMD]

19. they'd be murdered

by the Niners, Giants or Skins of the 80s and the Steelers, Cowboys or Raiders of the 70s.

[rinsd]

31. And as much as it makes me sick.....

...the Cowboys of the 90's were probably better.

[DaveinMD]

32. a lot better

that was a truly great team. I hate them a lot, but its true.

[rinsd]

14. One by one....

1) Seems to be based on an assumption. An exception would be the glory the Royals experienced in sweeping my beloved Yankees.

2) Ignores the fact that these "exhorbitant salaries" have risen in a far lower proportion that team revenues.

3) Why not eliminate free agency then?

4) BS. See the Twins. Asshole uber-wealthy owner with a good team that is still trying to bilk taxpayers for a stadium.

4a) If you think fans get excited about being the 8th seed in the playoffs outside of football, you're crazy.

5) Why not make contract non-guaranteed like the NFL that way you can just get rid of anyone too expensive irregardless of fan appreciation or talent. Then you get the copout that is the cap.

[CTLawGuy]

16. response

1) where I used to work, there was a sign that said "hard work beats talent, if talent doesn't work hard." The yankees weren't working hard that series, and the Royals were. However, if both teams work equally hard, then the more talented team witll win out.

2) If revenues are so much higher, then why don't more baseball owners invest money in their teams? Why is this problem unique to baseball? Don't you have to spend money to make money?

3) Are you saying there are no poor teams? Everybody has 200 million dollars lying around doing nothing and only the Yankees will spend it. Oh that's likely :eyes:

4) Fans get excited about BEING in the playoffs. It doesn't matter what seed they are. You think people say "Oh they're the 7th seed, now I'm not going to watch, but maybe if they were the 3rd seed I'd watch" :eyes:

5) getting rid of guaranteed contracts would be acceptable instead of having short contracts. That could be an alternative result of the salary cap.

[rinsd]

29. Reposne

1) Roy Hobbs would be proud ;-)

2) You'll have to ask owners. A few of whom's payrolls are covered under revnues sharing through luxury taxes. Take Pohlhad, he's raking it in hand over fist and the Twins payrolls has hovered in the same range for years. Take the Pads, they have a new stadium and a winning teams and the GM annouces he won't increasing the payroll one cent during trading in July.

3) Define poor? The Yankees revenues every year are between $250M and $300M. They are an example of reinvestment. One can;t say the same of many of the other teams. Obviously the opwners make money, why else would they be in business. The problem is that alot of ownership got corporate. Looking to squeeze as many dollars out of the fans without having to do much investment in the team.

4) Maybe the very first time. But in hockey and basketball so many teams make it that it only means your tema finished .500 or slightly better(or worse). Football's different because the games a structred so that you can advance quickly. With 7 game series the outcome is all but decided which is why only a smnall handful of #8's have beaten #1's.

5) I don;t think getting rid of guarantted contracts wholly is the answer. Perhaps putting a 3 or 4 years limit on guarantees otherwise again you're dealing with owners who are more concerned about their bottom line than actually winning. As you stated in an earlier example why invest to finish in 3rd when you can rake in the same dough at 5th.