Yes, because right now the Yankees could care less about the luxury tax of 40% above 155 million. To sign Tex they gave him a 22.5 million dollar a year contract plus pay an extra 9 million in luxury tax. That is more than the marlins spend in one season. With a salary cap there will still be a difference in team salaries but teams like the yankees cant buy championships. If the yankees have so much money why not increase the revenue sharing so that all teams can spend at a similar level. MLB is one of the only leagues that does not have tv contracts in place for each league like the NFC on fox and AFC on CBS for the NFL. Yankees get a considerable amount of money from the YES network, and many teams cant afford having their own network and cant get nationwide broadcasting like many of the large market teams. They could also launch a MLB network to maybe gain revenue in the long run.
I really don't think a salary cap would be good for the sport. Sure, it would hinder what the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets can do, but is that good baseball? I don't think so. A lot of people watch to see how these star laden teams do, and if you take away the salary cap, than the likelihood of any of those teams having the talent they do greatly lowers. Beyond this, it's not like the Yanks are breaking rules by spending $423mil this offseason. They're paying the luxury tax, just like any other team in their position would have to, they just don't care because the Steinbrenner's are filthy rich and they just got a $1.2 billion stadium PLUS a TV station to boot. Hell, they're even on pace to pay LESS this year in salaries than last year DESPITE this huge (historic?) spending spree. Plus, how does it really help? Sure, it might prevent from the Yankees signing everyone under the sun, but it doesn't help the small market teams. Big names like Teixeira and Sabathia are still not going to go to a small market and play. In the end, I think a salary cap hurts baseball. Like I said earlier, a lot of people pay attention to baseball because of teams like the Yanks and the Sox. I honestly think teams like that are good for baseball, because people will watch to see what those teams can do. I would definitely vote a big ol' NO for a salary cap.
The way it would help would be that teams like Kansas City would have to hand out a big deal while the Yankees would not. But it's never going to happen b/c the players association won't agree to it. The luxury tax was supposed to keep teams like the Yankees from spending too much b/c they would then have to also pay other teams. It was also supposed to help those other teams b/c they would then have more cash to spend on players. It hasn't. The Yankees could care less about writing that check, and all the other owners do is put that money in their pocket and keep their low payroll team.
mlb DOES have a tv contract, with fox, tbs, and espn, or else teams like kansas city would lose 50 million every year. and there IS a MLB network, MLB extra innings, on Direct TV. the problem lies with the market sizes. a team like boston, who televises all of its games on nesn, can generate ALOT of money from thier own sources as well, as well as all of the different radio stations who have rights to broadcast these games. implementing a salary cap would never fly past the union, because it couldnt make the other teams spend more money, unless there was a minimum salary cap too. teams like florida NEED to have miniscule payrolls or else they go out of buissiness. If anything, there should be harsher luxury tax penalties.
I know the Salary cap would never work because less money would be in the players and unions pocket, but no team should be able to spend over 150 million dollars with an increase of 2-3% per year. The tigers had the 2nd highest salary last year and that was 138 million, so the only team that would really be effected would be the yankees. The big market teams could still pursue the big named free agents, but this could still mean that the nationals or orioles with their massive offer to Tex could still compete in the bidding to acquire a superstar. Teams could still have 5 Superstars making 25 million each, and the other 35 players sharing 25 million. Teams can still build a championship caliber lineup with 150 million dollars, it would just make more teams more competitive in the league and the yankees could still spend the max and the marlins could still be competive with a 22 million dollar payroll. I did see that the MLB network is coming and good thing i have directv (channel 213), so its nice to have nfl and mlb network.
On one hand it will be good for baseball, with the KC's and O's being able to compete with NY and Boston's . But on the other hand isnt everyone intrested in seeing the Yanks fall on there face's again this year? And the Ray's and Rockies make a crazy WS run?
No because it is a reason why baseball is so great and right now teams are molded by the salary cap and if it was implemented teams wold be forced to firesale players(Yankees would have to auction off 1/2 their team) while others wold have tons of money and not a clue what to do with it putting the Rays and other good small market teams in the driver's seat
If they put the salary cap at the current luxury tax level (155 million) which increases 8 million a year. The only teams really effected would be the Yankees (majorly) and the Tigers (minimally because of salary increases were taxed at 22.5 opposed to 40 with the yankees). A salary cap is just a ceiling on spending not a salary floor, the Rays and the Marlins would get no more money than they regularly get from revenue sharing, and the marlins could spend 22 million a year and the yankees could spend 155 million. Yankees can still spend 7 times more than the marlins do a year with a salary cap. Isnt that fair?
My biggest issue with the revenue sharing is that there is a world of difference that the owners pay for the clubs and what they are valued at. Should the Red Sox have to split their fortune with the Marlins when they paid more than 4x the amount for their club? -Petey
The Brewers' owner said he was in favor of a salary cap because five years ago, he bought the Brewers for $220,000,000. This year in free agency, the Yankees paid that much for three players. Where will it end? I have to say I agree... A salary cap in baseball is long overdue.
Yes the my yanks have way to much money. they are trying to buy a championship. Heck look at the Rays how much money do they have agian? yanks missed the play-offs. every major sport has a salary cap
A cap doesnt have to cost the players money, they just need to be smart about it....1st, take the total amount of all the payrolls, add them together, divide by the number of teams, and thats your maximum cap....subtract 30% and thats your minimum....in this scenario, the players would make more money as a group, since a team like the Marlins could not operate at $10m a year....it can be done to even the playing field, but real revenue sharing would be necessary too, since you cant for a team to spend more than they generate....
That makes too, much sense TheBeef, MLB would never go for it. I actually prefer no salary cap in professional sports and no guaranteed contracts. I like how the NFL is structured.
Yes they have a salary cap, but franchises have more flexibility because contracts aren't guaranteed.
