Free Agency/Salary Cap?

**TonyStarks** · 02-22-2006, 05:28 PM

The Oakland A's, Twinkies & Florida Marlins are always teams that I look at when the 'Salary Cap' questions pop up.

I don't see how it's fair to penalize teams with Good Operational people like the Yanks, Red Sox, ChiSox because some teams are very bad judges of talent or the owners don't put the money they make back into their teams.
If the problem is the team's market then it's time to re-evaluate that market and maybe move on to another market ...say Las Vegas for example.

And I didn't think Astro's poll was very fair.
I am not for a Cap, but I didn't like the reason that was listed.

**Monarchs29** · 02-23-2006, 05:17 AM

Having a cap is one thing, The penalties for going over are quite another.

A couple of years ago, when this question was asked, my opinion was that the cap should be $100M. Well, I've reconsidered this and now I'm thinking that it should be $120M. Since the price of everything has skyrocketed these days, and upward adjustment in the cap seems appropriate.

The big question is, what should the penalties be if you decide to go over the limit. Here's my solution that I think might rein in those teams who decide to buy their way into the playoffs.

I'm thinking that for every dollar those teams spend over the limt, they should be assessed another dollar to put into the revenue-share fund. Hence. If a team wants to spend $200M in salaries, that team should have to pay another $80M in penalties. IMO, that would be the incentive to bring it all down to reasonable levels.

Similarly, if there is a cap, there should also be a bottom level. I propose something in the order of either $50M or $60M. No exceptions.

Having this bottom level would do something to ensure a more competitive balance among all 30 teams. With the prospect that any team had a chance to make the playoffs, the possibility exists that most teams would draw more fans to their games. The outcome in this is that and all teams would benefit.

**BristolBoy** · 02-23-2006, 05:50 AM

...And I'm going to put the same comment in this post as I do every other salary cap thread: the only reason for NFL's salary cap is competitive balance, and like it or not there is more parity in MLB without a cap than there is in NFL with a cap.

I've got no problem with bringing up old topics, but we really seem to be flogging a dead horse with this one:

Different champions for 6 consecutive years:
MLB: Currently
NFL: Never

Teams reaching playoffs final four in the last 5 years:
MLB: 13/30, 43%
NFL: 12/32, 37.5%

Super Bowl / World Series Winners by era:
2005-2001: NFL 3 - 5 MLB
1996-2005: NFL 7 - 6 MLB
1986-1995: NFL 11 - 13 MLB
1975-1985: NFL 13 - 19 MLB
1965-1975: NFL 17 - 19 MLB

Can we please stop perpetuating these myths that
a) baseball has no parity,
b) football has parity far in excess of baseball and
c) baseball needs a salary cap?

Consider the dead horse flogged once and for all.

Signed: #1 BBFer against 'baseball needs a cap for competitive balance' threads, BristolBoy.

**Knick9** · 02-23-2006, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by BristolBoy

...And I'm going to put the same comment in this post as I do every other salary cap thread: the only reason for NFL's salary cap is competitive balance, and like it or not there is more parity in MLB without a cap than there is in NFL with a cap.

I've got no problem with bringing up old topics, but we really seem to be flogging a dead horse with this one:

Different champions for 6 consecutive years:
MLB: Currently
NFL: Never

Teams reaching playoffs final four in the last 5 years:
MLB: 13/30, 43%
NFL: 12/32, 37.5%

Super Bowl / World Series Winners by era:
2005-2001: NFL 3 - 5 MLB
1996-2005: NFL 7 - 6 MLB
1986-1995: NFL 11 - 13 MLB
1975-1985: NFL 13 - 19 MLB
1965-1975: NFL 17 - 19 MLB

Can we please stop perpetuating these myths that
a) baseball has no parity,
b) football has parity far in excess of baseball and
c) baseball needs a salary cap?

Consider the dead horse flogged once and for all.

Signed: #1 BBFer against 'baseball needs a cap for competitive balance' threads, BristolBoy.

Baseball has no parity. Saying that $250+ million and $30-ish million would ever be parity is a joke. What's your plan on making the Royals a championhip caliber team within these next 3 years? It's only been the way that one team in the NFL (New England Patriots) have won 3 Super Bowls in a 4-year span. Dynasties can always be made, and it's nothing new with the NFL. It doesn't hurt the quality of the NFL teams if one team happens to have a Super Bowl dynasty on their hands. To get back on topic with MLB, the Yankees are dubbed "the team of the 20th century", and that organization is dubbed that for a reason. Advantage in money, $. So I guess that one team winning 26 World Series championships in one century is parity compared to one NFL team having at most, 5 Super Bowl titles in 40 years? Also, World Series have been recorded longer than Super Bowls, so take that into consideration.

Let me list the teams that have never been competitive, and don't give me the excuse that they should be contracted:

Tampa Bay (always)
Colorado (except for the 1995 season)
Montreal of the mid '90s to 2004
St. Louis Browns (exceptions obviously)
Texas off and on

Teams that are always in the hunt for a ring:
Yankees
Red Sox
(this speaks for itself)

I'm in favor of a salary cap and floor, because if you keep going like this, chances are you'll see a billion dollar payroll for one of the two New England teams, and that won't be fun. It's something called a monopoly, and it's something that the salary cap keeps checking on, so that there are no monopolies.

I agree with you, though, it's like beating a dead horse. I'm not going to get into this thread alot.

**Mattingly** · 02-23-2006, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Monarchs29

Having a cap is one thing, The penalties for going over are quite another.

A couple of years ago, when this question was asked, my opinion was that the cap should be $100M. Well, I've reconsidered this and now I'm thinking that it should be $120M. Since the price of everything has skyrocketed these days, and upward adjustment in the cap seems appropriate.

The big question is, what should the penalties be if you decide to go over the limit. Here's my solution that I think might rein in those teams who decide to buy their way into the playoffs.

I'm thinking that for every dollar those teams spend over the limt, they should be assessed another dollar to put into the revenue-share fund. Hence. If a team wants to spend $200M in salaries, that team should have to pay another $80M in penalties. IMO, that would be the incentive to bring it all down to reasonable levels.

Similarly, if there is a cap, there should also be a bottom level. I propose something in the order of either $50M or $60M. No exceptions.

Having this bottom level would do something to ensure a more competitive balance among all 30 teams. With the prospect that any team had a chance to make the playoffs, the possibility exists that most teams would draw more fans to their games. The outcome in this is that and all teams would benefit.

Basically, what you're saying about the cap and penalties seems to be about what we've got right now w/o an actual cap. The Yanks do pay revenue sharing fees for going over some $130m level. If there's a large difference between your proposal and the 2002 CBA as it exists, then please advise.

I'd call this a "soft cap", meaning that it's like a strong adviser, but you can go above this, but at your own risk. It's not even a risk, as you'd *DEFINITELY* get penalized.

If you're going to have a cap, then you could make it what I'd consider a "hard cap", meaning that no team is allowed to go above this, regardless of how much of a penalty they're willing to absorb. Some would like this, some wouldn't.

As to the floor, how come no penalties for this, as you had for the cap? What would stop a team from coming out with a $30-40m team if the floor were $60m?

**trosmok** · 02-23-2006, 08:56 AM

....all thirty teams pooled 100% of the broadcast revenue and divided it equally, and used it exclusively for players' salaries we wouldn't even be discussing a cap. All thirty teams would be forced to work in concert to help their smaller market partners in MLB without making an upper limit income ceiling for the most expensive players. It isn't the superstar salaries that cause the disparity, it is throwing millions at mediocre players that kills the parity (not parody). The Yankees and Red Sox would still make the most money, thanks to geography and their expertise in marketing their teams and associated merchandise better than anyone else. Attendance and ticket sales are only a small percentage of the actual revenue a club generates, but it is high time the rest of it is put toward MLB as a whole, instead of 29 egomaniacs and a puppet trying to crush competition instead of thriving on it. Free market forces can be allowed to work, if the owners would only realize they are all in the same business, namely major league baseball.

**Brian McKenna** · 02-23-2006, 10:37 AM

soft cap - what the hell is that - aah we have this limit but those who choose to go above it okay no problem - a cap is a cap (high and low) - no one exceeds it

the caps would have to be based on some kind of percentage - whatever the industry argues - if its $200M/$100M than so be it - at least everyone would be a lot closer in talent outlays - sure small market teams would need to be especially effiecient with their expenditures

whoever said that all small market teams are poor and fail because their top management can't do their job and that rich clubs are that way because they have the only bright front office people in the business must be some sort of english major or something

you new york guys are dreaming if you believe that the discrepancy between the highest and lowest payrolls make sense - come out of the clouds

revenue sharing is an agreement w/i the industry - if it works for them fine - if it doesn't that's their business - i don't see where it matters too much - there will always be teams that do better financially than others - as long as the poorer teams can meet the payroll floor and infuse talent into the organization and keep things interesting great - if they can't - time to move on - but it is wholly ridiculous that one teams spends $230M and another spends $30M - argue it all you like because it is "your" team that can spend the cash but - IT IS A RECIPE FOR FAILURE - the failure would be an industry wide failure - so toot toot your boys but it will come - if that's not until 2050 than i hope the industry can survive until then - i'm sure the other major sports (and the up-and-comers) will be all too happy to pick up the disgruntled baseball fans

i and no one here on bbf is going to shun the sport - but we represent a very small portion of the potential market

**digglahhh** · 02-23-2006, 11:33 AM

A COMPLETE lack of competitive balance only exists between the extreme highs and lows of payroll. I believe that almost 2/3 of the league is within $30M, between 50 and 80 mil, not positive though, and the numbers always change.

The problem isn't the lack of competitive balance or lack of "parity" per se, its the fact that it is always the same teams with the most and least resources. Football's parity is overrated, and honestly I don't care how many teams finish between 7-9 and 9-7 to feign competitiveness because every year there are less than a handful of teams with a legit shot at winning it all, and that exists in all sports. In basketball, they let 16 teams in the playoffs, and never are there more than 4 with a legit shot at going home with the rings. So, in my mind competitiveness among the mid tier teams is overrated. However it would be nice to see different teams cycle through the rebuilding phases, it would lead to more well rounded management too.

I'm rambling a bit, but one thing I would like to note is that the Twins who are everbody's small market darling because they made the playoffs were #2 in payroll within their division in '02,'03,'04 when the made the playoffs.

Taken from the article linked at the bottom, this chart shows the relative payrolls of teams in relation to their finish within their division.

1990-1996 Teams NPayroll NP-MAX NP-MIN
1 34 1.13 1.59 0.58
2 35 1.05 1.59 0.48
3 34 0.96 1.38 0.62
4 33 0.97 1.58 0.45
5 28 0.91 1.49 0.30
6 16 0.88 1.45 0.32
7 10 1.03 1.41 0.74

1997-2001
1 30 1.26 1.74 0.56
2 30 1.04 1.68 0.27
3 30 1.00 1.67 0.36
4 30 0.88 1.70 0.25
5 24 0.79 1.24 0.30
6 4 0.89 1.25 0.35

2002-2005
1 24 1.32 2.86 0.59
2 24 1.09 1.84 0.57
3 25 0.92 1.41 0.50
4 23 0.94 1.56 0.43
5 20 0.76 1.65 0.28
6 4 0.56 0.75 0.40

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...e-and-the-cba/

**digglahhh** · 02-23-2006, 12:06 PM

Revenue sharing and the aphorism of owners having to put the money back into the team is not that simple.

Spending big dollars to turn a 65 win team into a 74 win pays very small returns at the bottom line.

In fact encourging medium and small market teams to spend their revenue sharing money on pverpriced mid level free agents is extremely inefficient in terms of dollar spent per win and overall revenue increase as a result of increased "comepetitivenss" The value of a player is related as much to team performance as it is to the team's market. Teams may be better off investing that money in the farm system and stockpiling it for a real worthwhile addition if they become improve substantially through homegrown talent and want to add a free agent then. Also, having the money to pay homegrown guys when they turn into stars is important too. The Expos were basically a communal quadruple A franchise for the rest of the ML for ten years.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...player-part-3/

This is the final part of a three part series that explores these issues and the whole series is worthwhile reading. At some point in one of the articles, the author makes the same contention that I just did here.

If you are put off by use of Win Shares or whatever, fret not. Overall, I shun that stuff too, but their use doesn't undermine the spirit of this analysis because the underlying premise is solid and the Win Shares just allow him to quantify unknown quantities for the sake of the argument. Whether Vladimir Guerrero is worth 7, 9 or 11 wins is not really the point here, so don't get caught up in that aspect of the articles.

**Brian McKenna** · 02-23-2006, 12:44 PM

i might be wrong but it just seems to me that much of marketing, pr and word-of-mouth depends on perception - as i understand it the nfl has a hard cap and almost all the teams spend $ for talent at very much the same level - hence the perception is that teams are potentially equal - thus a generic team has a shot every year - i don't think that is the case in baseball - if that's okay than its okay - but basketball and football didn't become as big as they are following baseball's financial management model - perhaps there is a lesson there

**trosmok** · 02-23-2006, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by digglahhh

....
Spending big dollars to turn a 65 win team into a 74 win pays very small returns at the bottom line...
In fact encourging medium and small market teams to spend their revenue sharing money on pverpriced mid level free agents is extremely inefficient in terms of dollar spent per win...

Exactly, and even big market teams that blow outrageous bucks on free agents and still don't make the post-season is well documented. My Cubs have one of the highest payrolls in MLB, and nary a WS appearance to show for it. The Phillies and your Mets are poster children for high-priced signings that bust. The Blue Jays have shopped and spent more than any team outside of the Bronx and Boston over this last off-season, and I sure hope they get some return on their huge investment. I also like the point you make about developing talent being only part of the game; the ability to keep what you've grown is a whole different kettle of corn.

**Brian McKenna** · 02-23-2006, 01:31 PM

these are all factors in producing a winning team - they are not mutually exclusive but they aren't wholly dependent on each other either

1) developing a farm system
2) keeping your players
3) purchasing talent
4) execution on the field
5) effective mgmt decisions

the fact is this is sports - every action has a reaction - you can have the worst front office in the world and still win and vice versa depending on execution - but it sure does help to have the $ to position yourself with the best team possible come opening day and to be able to make adjustments come august

**Cubsfan97** · 02-23-2006, 01:54 PM

I've said it before and will say it again, there is no need for a slaray cap. If the Brewers or Royals want to compete there is nothing stopping them form opening up their wallets. If the YAnkees want to have 200 million dollar payroll, the more power to them. I actually like the Yankees high payroll. Every winter Im just seeing how high it can go. I look at like the game limbo, except opposite. I love watching it rise.

**Brian McKenna** · 02-23-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Cubsfan97

. I love watching it rise.

so do the players

**digglahhh** · 02-24-2006, 08:32 AM

The biggest advantage money gives you is the luxury of not being crippled by one or more expensive busts. Smaller market teams just have a smaller margin for error. Many of the wealthy teams can absorb bad signings to varying degrees and are able to buck up again next offseason, or immediately to replace the bust. Making $6 million in New York is not enough, in and of itself, to justify the manager sending you out there everyday.

The Yankees are really the only team that is willing to flat out eat big contracts, giving a check and your walking papers.

If you look at the Yankees in terms of their contributing members last season, the payroll of THOSE guys was not $200M. Big checks were going to Wright, Pavano, Bernie, Kevin Brown, Steve Karsay as well as portions of contracts of players on other teams being paid by the Yankees.

The Yanks got substantial contributions from guys like Aaron Small, Wang, Sturtze, etc. and these guys were making peanuts.

While the financial disparities are alarming, it is prudent to keep in mind that the payroll does not play the games, and the price of the on-field Yankees is not $200 M and the actual value of those players is often substantially less.

In a society where teenage girls working at McDonalds spend two weeks salary on Gucci bags it is often forgotten that price does not dictate quality, and even rarer still does it dictate efficiency.

**Tigerfan1974** · 02-24-2006, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by MapleSyrupMan

Do you think baseball needs a salary cap? If you answer, please give your reasons why or why not.

Thanks!

The MLBPA will never let it happen.

**Mattingly** · 02-24-2006, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Tigerfan1974

The MLBPA will never let it happen.

Neither would $cott Bora$.

**The Big C** · 03-01-2006, 04:18 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...e=caple/060124

That sums up a lot of how I feel, and states it better than I ever could.

Originally Posted by Knick9

Baseball has no parity. Saying that $250+ million and $30-ish million would ever be parity is a joke. What's your plan on making the Royals a championhip caliber team within these next 3 years? It's only been the way that one team in the NFL (New England Patriots) have won 3 Super Bowls in a 4-year span. Dynasties can always be made, and it's nothing new with the NFL. It doesn't hurt the quality of the NFL teams if one team happens to have a Super Bowl dynasty on their hands. To get back on topic with MLB, the Yankees are dubbed "the team of the 20th century", and that organization is dubbed that for a reason. Advantage in money, $. So I guess that one team winning 26 World Series championships in one century is parity compared to one NFL team having at most, 5 Super Bowl titles in 40 years? Also, World Series have been recorded longer than Super Bowls, so take that into consideration.

Let me list the teams that have never been competitive, and don't give me the excuse that they should be contracted:

Tampa Bay (always)
Colorado (except for the 1995 season)
Montreal of the mid '90s to 2004
St. Louis Browns (exceptions obviously)
Texas off and on

Teams that are always in the hunt for a ring:
Yankees
Red Sox
(this speaks for itself)

I'm in favor of a salary cap and floor, because if you keep going like this, chances are you'll see a billion dollar payroll for one of the two New England teams, and that won't be fun. It's something called a monopoly, and it's something that the salary cap keeps checking on, so that there are no monopolies.

I agree with you, though, it's like beating a dead horse. I'm not going to get into this thread alot.

Football is very prone to dynasties, being that there is atleast one in almost every decade. Dynasties in baseball are off and on, not running consecutively for many years.

You listed baseball teams that have never been competitive (among them the St. Louis Browns. What the hell?) There are several teams in the NFL that are not competitive now, and haven't been for awhile. Also, teams like Tampa Bay were not competitive for a long time, but are now. I think the salary cap almost contributes to tearing down teams now. The Titans were decent last year considering how long Steve McNair was out, and they were only a few years removed from that super bowl appearance against the Rams.

The cap forced them to get rid of many of their better and higher paid players. People hate the Marlins for their firesale, but this is somewhat more common in the NFL entirely because of the salary cap.

In the NBA, the salary cap doesn't really stop teams from blowing their money (Knick9, you should know all about this). Stephon Marbury and Allan Houston are paid more by the Knicks than all of the Detroit Pistons starting 5 combined. I don't know why you would think the salary cap prevents this.

I just think the salary cap is a bad idea in general. It also leads to more labor disputes, which is definitely something we want to avoid.

**Mattingly** · 03-01-2006, 04:52 PM

Since the NFL currently has a salary cap, I heard yesterday on TV that if the current contract expires, they may not even have the $94.5m cap in the future.

If MLB had a salary cap, then would teams be forced to terminate contracts? How much would that cap be?

NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw
talks with reporters in Detroit in a Friday, Feb. 3, 2006
photo. NFL labor talks broke off Tuesday three days
before the start of free agency, leaving teams and
players in a quandary about negotiating new contracts.
Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players
Association, spent the last three days meeting in
New York and Washington with commissioner

NFL Owners Will Try to Find Labor Peace

NEW YORK — NFL owners will try Thursday to find labor peace before the start of free agency, hoping to avoid the mass dumping of veterans for salary-cap reasons.

The owners will meet in New York, looking to reach an agreement with the players' union that could add $10 million to $15 million to a 2006 salary cap that currently is $94.5 million. Without it, some teams could be forced into wholesale cuts to get beneath the cap by midnight. Free agency starts Friday. The NFL extended the deadline for teams to terminate contracts and request waivers on players six hours, from 4 p.m. Thursday to 10 p.m.

**efin98** · 03-01-2006, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Mattingly

Since the NFL currently has a salary cap, I heard yesterday on TV that if the current contract expires, they may not even have the $94.5m cap in the future.

It's a guarentee, but not until next year. The cap is active for this year.

If MLB had a salary cap, then would teams be forced to terminate contracts? How much would that cap be?

There won't be any terminations, more likely a situation similiar to the NHL's sallary cap situation from this past summer, what the NBA did after their last labor agreement, and what the NFL does each year:

Yearly: Mandatory buyout clauses in every future contract. Teams releasing highly paid older players at a deadline with no penalty to the teams, just whatever amount is agreed upon in their contracts. Also payrolls will be percentage based so no player can have more than a certain percentage of the salary cap for the year. Players can only resign for a certain percentage above their former salary with one the solo exception being second year full year players. Players are also allowed to have signing bonuses of which only a certain percentage is counted alongside the player's base salary against the cap.

One time only: Mandatory contract renegotiation to include a buyout clause. Institution of a one day only buyout deadline for teams to jettison players to get themselves under the sallary cap. A few "amnesty" days where teams are allowed to write-off the contracts to old or injured veterans at no penalty to the salary cap. The teams are limited to only a certain amount of money and or a certain number of players so no team can release an entire team in order to "start fresh".

As for the salary cap number? I'd guess it would be about $90 million at the start and raising to $125 million a year after 10 years. No team can exceed that amount for players regardless of how rich they are.

That's about $3.6 million or so per player for a 25 man roster. That's better than the NFL($1.7 million per player, 55 man roster) and NHL($1.58 Million per player, 24 player roster)

**Tigerfan1974** · 03-02-2006, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Mattingly

Neither would $cott Bora$.

Good One! ROFLMAO!!

**Erik Bedard** · 03-19-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Cubsfan97

If the Brewers or Royals want to compete there is nothing stopping them form opening up their wallets.

You're joking, right? There is something. It's called LACK OF REVENUE. They don't MAKE enough money to spend on players, so they have little hope. George Steinbrenner has all the money from broadcasts coming back to him, or, in French, l'argent as revenu. Recognize the word?

**Ubiquitous** · 03-19-2006, 09:31 PM

I'll say the same thing I said before. Forget salary caps and focus on real revenue sharing. With real revenue sharing salary caps become unnecessary.

**Ubiquitous** · 03-19-2006, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by MapleSyrupMan

You're joking, right? There is something. It's called LACK OF REVENUE. They don't MAKE enough money to spend on players, so they have little hope. George Steinbrenner has all the money from broadcasts coming back to him, or, in French, l'argent as revenu. Recognize the word?

How much money does one need to spend on players?

There are 8 playoff spots and the Yankees are not in direct competition for 6 of those spots. The Royals only have to be better then the Indians, Twins, Tigers, and Sox, not the Yankees.

On top of that the way the pay structure of players is set up one does not need to pay players 20 million dollars to get 20 million dollars worth of performance.

One doesn't need to match the Yankees dollar for dollar to compete with them. The cleveland Indains with a payroll a 5th of the Yankees won 93 games last year to the Yankees 95 games.