I highly suggest that anyone who is a proponent of a salary cap in baseball read Forbes annual Business of Baseball report. Prior to every season since 2001, they have compiled franchise valuations for every single team and ranked them 1-30. They do a breakdown for each team's finances, complete with the major financial components of a professional sports team; revenue, player expenses, operating income, debt value, gate receipts, etc.
Seven teams have anchored the top ten for the last decade. The Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, and Mets are usual suspects, as they are history-laden teams (other than the Mets) in gigantic markets. The Phillies and Giants became fixtures in the top seven when their new stadiums opened (Phillies in 2004, Giants in 2000). Those two franchises are proof that baseball does not have some pre-ordained list of top franchises. They rose from the ashes because as their revenue skyrocketed, their owners made sure their payroll rose as well. In 2001, the Giants and Phillies had a combined 105M payroll. In 2012, they have the two highest payrolls in the National League (Phi-175, SF-130). Same story for the Texas Rangers. Amazing what happens when a team wins and an owner actually puts some of the money he earned from that into keeping the team winning.
I really do recommend taking a look at the operating income for some of these small-market teams that are supposedly getting shafted. Forbes has all the numbers you could ever want. In 2011, baseball's two most profitable teams were....wait for it....the Cleveland Indians and Kansas City Royals. In 2010, it was the San Diego Padres.
Quote:
The most profitable team was the Padres, which had an operating income of $37 million in 2010. The team’s attendance surged by 200,000 at Petco Park as the Padres finished just two games behind the San Francisco Giants in the National League West. The Padres managed to post a 90-72 record despite a payroll of just $38 million, which was the lowest in baseball. The Padres also benefited from a revenue-sharing check of more than $30 million.
Thanks to more than $400 million sent from high-revenue to low-revenue teams, several teams with low attendance were able to post operating profits of at least $10 million. Among them: the Pittsburgh Pirates ($25 million), Kansas City Royals ($10 million), Oakland Athletics ($23 million) and Marlins ($20 million).
So really, who exactly is getting shafted?
Last edited by Blades of Glory: 04-28-2012 at 03:18 PM.
A salary will never exist in baseball. First of all, there wouldn't be nearly enough support from the owners. Even though a vote on a prospective cap might go in favor of having one, there is no way that anything short of a near-consensus vote would be acceptable. The only reason that the NFL was able to implement a salary cap after the 1993 season was because 26 owners united against two. The Dallas Cowboys and San Francisco 49ers were miles ahead of the rest of the NFL, both in talent and financial ability, because of their free-spending, winning-obsessed owners (Jones and Debartolo). The other owners rightfully realized that a cap was the only way to create some type of competition for those two teams. That won't happen in baseball, because all the big-money teams will stick together. The Yankees really aren't keeping the Giants or Dodgers from winning, the Phillies aren't keeping the Red Sox or Tigers from winning, etc. Almost half the teams in the sport have a 90+M payroll. I think that's pretty good progress from where we were 5-10 years ago.
Besides, you are kidding yourself if you think that the most powerful union in sports, unquestionably one of the most powerful workers unions in the entire country, would EVER agree to a cap.
The sport is fair enough without the cap. There is simply no need. Any excuses for lack of parity can easily be explained away by poor management or incompetent ownership.
The sport is fair enough without the cap. There is simply no need. Any excuses for lack of parity can easily be explained away by poor management or incompetent ownership.
Exactly. The perfect example against a salary cap is the Cardinals. Good ownership and good front office to spend money smart and not overpay to the point of killing the teams future. They put a good team on the field which draws fans and allows ownership to build a team with 110 million payroll. And have recently spent more money investing in the farm system which is producing huge results.
And the Cardinals are in one of the smallest markets.
Why on Earth should every team have an equal opportunity? Baseball is a business like any other -- good businesses flourish, bad ones don't. Should McDonalds' spending be limited because my awful burger joint blows $50 million on meat with mad cow disease (the beef equivalent of B.J. Ryan?)
Those aren't equivalent examples. Every team should have an equal opportunity because it's adventagous to the sport in a multiplicity of ways. Say what you like about what collective bargaining and whatnot have done for teams like say..the Pirates, the fact that they keep losing is not good for baseball.
Part of what a professional league does is expand the game and expand intrest in the sport. When you park a team in a city and watch it lose for two, three, even four decades while giving it a severe disadvantage to return to competition, there is something wrong there, and frankly it's detrimental toward the long term viability of said market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KH1
But even so, the big market teams chip in millions and millions into revenue sharing -- which the recipients almost never actually spend on their rosters.
It's not Hal Steinbrenner's job to make Rogers spend their billions, and it's not Major League Baseball's job to stymie it's most successful franchises. A rising tide lifts all boats, and almost everyone involved in baseball is getting rich. Now's not the time to change the system.
Yes, it is the job of Major League Baseball to stymie some level of success if said success comes at the expense of competition, which I believe it does.
Those aren't equivalent examples. Every team should have an equal opportunity because it's adventagous to the sport in a multiplicity of ways. Say what you like about what collective bargaining and whatnot have done for teams like say..the Pirates, the fact that they keep losing is not good for baseball.
Part of what a professional league does is expand the game and expand intrest in the sport. When you park a team in a city and watch it lose for two, three, even four decades while giving it a severe disadvantage to return to competition, there is something wrong there, and frankly it's detrimental toward the long term viability of said market.
Yes, it is the job of Major League Baseball to stymie some level of success if said success comes at the expense of competition, which I believe it does.
Also, when teams want to hoard money without placing a priority on winning...(like the Pirates did for years), that's probably not the best argument for a cap. I simply see no reason why there should be a cap. Get a better GM. Make better business decisions. The game has shown ample times that you can win without having a large payroll. You just have to be shrewd
Those aren't equivalent examples. Every team should have an equal opportunity because it's adventagous to the sport in a multiplicity of ways. Say what you like about what collective bargaining and whatnot have done for teams like say..the Pirates, the fact that they keep losing is not good for baseball.
every team does have opportunity. it might not be equal but they still have the opportunity. the fact that the pirates have had losing seasons for 20 years is not because the yankees spent a lot of money in free agency. it's not because there's a problem with the free market ways of free agency. it's because the pirates, themselves, have been run by a bunch of ****ing idiots.
Quote:
Part of what a professional league does is expand the game and expand intrest in the sport. When you park a team in a city and watch it lose for two, three, even four decades while giving it a severe disadvantage to return to competition, there is something wrong there, and frankly it's detrimental toward the long term viability of said market.
so there's no responsibility from the team to put a quality team together? it's all on the other teams to make their competition better. good to know.
Quote:
Yes, it is the job of Major League Baseball to stymie some level of success if said success comes at the expense of competition, which I believe it does.
so now it's baseball's responsibility to weaken teams who do their jobs properly in order to help teams who don't know their ***** from a hole in the ground.
So because thats this case in MAY of ONE particular season it means we don't need a Cap?
I'm a Cap guy guy but I think baseball needs a cap floor more than cap ceiling. So cheap teams have to at least make an effort. Look at the NHL this year, the Panthers had to spend and they ended up making the playoffs.
So because thats this case in MAY of ONE particular season it means we don't need a Cap?
I'm a Cap guy guy but I think baseball needs a cap floor more than cap ceiling. So cheap teams have to at least make an effort. Look at the NHL this year, the Panthers had to spend and they ended up making the playoffs.
Other arguments against a cap are listed above. There basically is no reason to add one. And this isn't a one-year deal.
A floor is a lot more important, as is replay. Then you can worry about cap ceilings.
So because thats this case in MAY of ONE particular season it means we don't need a Cap?
I'm a Cap guy guy but I think baseball needs a cap floor more than cap ceiling. So cheap teams have to at least make an effort. Look at the NHL this year, the Panthers had to spend and they ended up making the playoffs.
Well I don't think you can have one without the other.
To be honest, I'm not sure why anyone would be against a salary management system. While there are different winners and whatnot, the increase in parity would be much better overall IMO. I'd love to see teams like the Pirates, Royals, etc. make a run and be competitive, and that will never happen without a SMS in place.
