Well, it is and it isn't. Yes, any owner can theoretically spend as much as humanly possible. But this is not really an option to many teams. Not all teams are created equally. Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, etc... will always have larger revenue streams than other teams based on their history, location, tv deals, whatever. As a Jays fan, I'd like Rogers to open up the wallet a bit more, but I don't want the Jays to be saddled with a buttload of ****** contracts just because they're hella rich.
There should be a hard cap that you cannot exceed but there should be a floor as well. And the two shouldn't be like 100 million apart. But, I don't see either side really going for this unfortunately. As the kid says in the video, "You have to spend money, to make money". That's true if you wanna make a lot of money. But those teams making 10s of millions off of revenue sharing have no reason to spend money if they are going to be handed a fat check at the end of each year for doing nothing.
Who would you rather be? Alexei Yashin making 3+ million a year for doing nothing or some guy grinding it out on the 4th line making 750k?
I'd be more concerned about teams sitting back, making no offseason moves at all, and getting a fat check for doing nothing than a salary cap. The Pirates before this off-season used to do that all the time.
I don't know why it's a big deal when the big spenders frequently collapse and miss the playoffs (see Red Sox, Braves) or fail to win it all (Yankees)
You can't buy a championship, so there shouldn't be any concern about a salary cap.
Baseball is tough. It's nice to be able to get to the playoffs, or at the very least, play some exciting games in September. As a Jays fan, it has sucked knowing that we haven't played an important game in almost 2 decades. I'm sure other fans of other franchises feel the same way, and their teams haven't spent just the bare minimum.
the blue jays have also been laughably mismanaged for the better part of the last two decades and didn't deserve to make the postseason.
Oh, I don't disagree that they've had incompetent GMs and managers in the past. But I think a cap and a floor would bring the teams closer across the league.
the teams are already closer. there's been different winners and playoff teams pretty much every year. weakening good teams so you can artificially pump up lesser teams is just ****ing with your product.
just keep derping around with the salary cap until those big, bad, mean big market teams can't compete!
My concern is that too many people want to change the game. Everything is FINE with baseball. The only legitimate complaint is instant replay, and even that's not a slam dunk. Baseball was fine before this season, and the "expansion" of the playoffs. They didn't need to expand the postseason. They don't need a salary cap. Everything is fine as is.
If there's a cap, it should be $150M or more. And there should be a $75M floor
I agree.
Right now the system is working. Revenue sharing is robust and just about everyone involved in the sport is making money hand over fist. Plus, the highest spending teams don't have a lock on the championship. I know that it pisses off Royals fans that David Glass would rather buy a new yacht than a new starting pitcher, but this is America and nobody can tell you how to spend your money.
In terms of operating income, the three most profitable teams in baseball last year were the Padres, the Pirates, and the A's. So I have a problem with small market teams pocketing money from Steinbrenner, Henry, Moreno, et al and then turning around and complaining that they're being outspent.
If there was a cap, there would have to be a very competitive floor put in as well. That's the reason that, for all their complaining, no small market owner has seriously raised the cap issue in CBA negotiations for a decade. They don't want to spend more, and they shouldn't have to.
Should get a cap so the Jays can dominate this thing.
Out of curiosities sake, what makes you think that -- all payrolls being equal -- the Blue Jays would dominate anything? It's not like limiting payroll to ~$175 million is going to make the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays (not to mention the Tigers, Angels, Rangers, etc.) magically disappear.
Out of curiosities sake, what makes you think that -- all payrolls being equal -- the Blue Jays would dominate anything? It's not like limiting payroll to ~$175 million is going to make the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays (not to mention the Tigers, Angels, Rangers, etc.) magically disappear.
Baseball is tough. It's nice to be able to get to the playoffs, or at the very least, play some exciting games in September. As a Jays fan, it has sucked knowing that we haven't played an important game in almost 2 decades. I'm sure other fans of other franchises feel the same way, and their teams haven't spent just the bare minimum.
I feel bad for you guys because the Jays have been well-run enough that they'd have made the playoffs if they were in the Central.
But you guys have the richest owners in the league, stop bellyaching. And be patient, this team has a real future ahead of it. The Red Sox and Yankees are old now, they won't be making the playoffs every year (The Sox aren't already).
AA has hinted several times in the past that he has the wherewithal to put payroll in the stratosphere when the time is right. Ricciardi did that himself, he just blew the money on people like Wells.
