The Rays and A’s have been consistently better than the Mets and Angels. It can be done, but it’s hard and the margin for error is much smaller. I don’t think a salary cap fixes it though. The bad teams in the NFL are consistently bad, and the good teams are consistently good. It’s bad for the Pirates fans that their franchise sucks, but the rest of the world doesn’t care
A question for baseball purists
- Thread starter PearlSUJam
- Start date
The two teams you cite have been to 2 world series in 22 seasons, and won none. And they are the shining examples. That's a problem.
And of course money alone doesn't guarantee success. It takes money plus good management. But the small markets even with good management have almost no opportunity to win a world series, as evidenced by the very teams you cited. And their fans are forced to give up their best players in their prime. That's a recipe for a sport to continue to decline nationally. All the other sports have a cap, and it's great for their games. Packers fans can spend 25 years getting to root for Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers. Pens fans can support Crosby and Malkin for 15 years. Bucks fans get watch Giannis through all his best years. Baseball? The list of stars leaving in their prime is endless. The Indians did everything right to build a team their fans should've been able to enjoy for a decade. Now it's all been sold off, because of salary issues.
I'm not excusing the Pirates management. It was awful the past 6 years after it had developed a good roster of talent, and caused things to be as bad as they are now. But even with the best management, the ceiling is limited. It is terrible for the sport when 2/3 of the league have a ceiling, and they can only hit that ceiling if they make all the right decisions, and everything lines up perfectly, and even then, they get 2-3 year max on that window.
Only 1 team per year wins the World Series. It’s much more even when you look at playoff teams
I don’t think that the ceiling is that low. When billionaire owners, who own teams worth 500M+, and are given over 100M per year by the league tell you they don’t have any money to spend on the product, I don’t buy it. Spend money on front office talent, give them money to spend, and then all of the sudden fans will be in the seats and watch on TV. Way too many owners are happy to sit back and take the money handout and cry poor
Then they better allow the pitcher to rub up the ball a little bit more than they do. These guys are throwing marbles at a hundred miles an hour. One of my former players is a closer in the big leagues and he told me the reason that many of the teams don't care about pitchers using pine tar is because it actually makes the game safer. Too many accidental hit batters because the balls so smooth they can't control it
Soul I agree and this is what CFB needs some type of change to create parity.
It's disingenuous to pretend its a conspiracy whereby all the small market owners decide they prefer pocketing a few million over fielding a competitive team. Because that's what it would take to explain why St. Louis is the only small market that consistently spends (and that's because they're an aberration as the best baseball town in America and the revenue they generate).
This is 5 years old, but fivethirtyeight looked at the relationship between spending and winning. Unsurprisingly, greater spending generally portends greater winning, with outliers both directions. And the degree to which that is true has been growing as the gap has continued growing.
You do realize those two only have 2 Superbowl wins between them in those 25 years, right? Both of those SB were won when Farve and Rodgers were relatively young and their salaries were fairly cheap so the Packers could afford to surround them with better talent. As each got older and demanded more money, less money was/is left to surround them and keep talented guys around them. So the cap has consequences as well.
In baseball, I think the answer is to actually make the owners spend a certain amount of money. I'm not sure of what the number should be. $100 million on the roster? Then make the luxury tax more punitive. If the owner(s) can't afford it, they should be forced to sell the team or move.
Last edited:
I never said there was a conspiracy. And did you ever consider that St Louis is such a great baseball town because the ownership puts a good product on the field each year? Maybe other teams should try that and see what happensIt's disingenuous to pretend its a conspiracy whereby all the small market owners decide they prefer pocketing a few million over fielding a competitive team. Because that's what it would take to explain why St. Louis is the only small market that consistently spends (and that's because they're an aberration as the best baseball town in America and the revenue they generate).
This is 5 years old, but fivethirtyeight looked at the relationship between spending and winning. Unsurprisingly, greater spending generally portends greater winning, with outliers both directions. And the degree to which that is true has been growing as the gap has continued growing.
No one is arguing spending and winning aren’t correlated. If you don’t want to spend money on the product, don’t buy a baseball team. It’s not the Yankees and Red Sox fault that Peter Angelos sucks at his job
I realize their limited SB wins, the reference to keeping star players was about making the sport enjoyable for fans. The Pack issues have been poor coaching (McCarthy) and NFC championship choke jobs. I think all fans would prefer those causes to simply having no chance because of how the system is set up.
Last edited:
Zero owners spend their own money on their MLB teams. None. It comes from revenues the teams earn. Even when the small markets spend all that they have coming in, it's not close to those other teams. The idea they're pocketing some large sum that if otherwise spent would change their fate simply isn't true.
I guess I just don't get why anyone would argue against the cap. What are the downsides to it, from a fan perspective? Isn't it a better sport for everyone when every single team begins on the same footing, and management, coaching, development, and performance are what decides which teams are great? And where every fan base gets to root for players for nearly their entire career? What is in the "pro" column for saying there shouldn't be a cap?
I explained it to you above but you blew it off as poor coaching and choke jobs. Also, what makes you think players would stay with a team longer with a cap in place? Cap or no cap the teams that draft the best and develop players will win in any league. The young players that are cheap and make considerable contributions are what wins championships. How many WS have the Dodgers won since they decided to out spend everyone for free agents? One?
I didn't blow it off, I just don't see where what you pointed out makes an argument that no cap is better. How is saying Favre and Rodgers only won 2 super bowls a sign that no salary cap is a better system?
And I assume players will stay longer because of the mountain of evidence from the 3 other leagues that have salary caps. You think Sidney Crosby would still be a Pirate if he were the baseball equivalent? Or Giannis still a Buck? Or Rodgers a Packer? I'm not making assumptions, I'm looking at the facts of how it works in every sport that has a cap.
And again, anecdotes prove nothing. As the fivethirtyeight data shows, $=more wins. No anecdotes about particular big spenders who lost or small markets who won changes that fact.
At the time, pitchers commonly dirtied balls with soil, licorice, and tobacco juice, and scuffed, sandpapered, scarred, cut, or spiked them, giving a "misshapen, earth-colored ball that traveled through the air erratically, tended to soften in the later innings, and, as it came over the plate, was very hard to see."[10] Mays threw with a submarine delivery, and it was late afternoon. Eyewitnesses recounted that Chapman did not react to the pitch at all, presumably unable to see it. The sound of the ball striking Chapman's skull was so loud that Mays thought it had hit the end of Chapman's bat; he fielded the ball and threw to first base.
Ray Chapman - Wikipedia
The fact that you used a NBA player to make a point that the salary cap keeps players with a team longer kills your argument. They change teams like underwear. Sorry. ✌
Still waiting for one reason no cap is better for the game and fans. Let me know when you have even one.
Not my discussion, but I’ll take a shot at it...the big market teams are where all the fans are. Small market teams winning doesn’t excite anyone outside of the small market. More people tuning into the playoffs and WS helps the revenue and interest in the game. Do what makes the most people happy. Just a shot.
Juju Smith Schuster is 23, a fan favorite in Pittsburgh and won't be re-signed because he will be too expensive to fit under the Steelers cap. I can go on.
I don’t have a problem with a cap, but it has to come with a salary floor that offsets the decrease in spending at the top. I’m not interested in any policy that takes money out of the players pockets and puts it in owners pockets
I agree with this as I posted earlier. His stance that the cap keeps players with a team longer is completely wrong. If anything baseball's guaranteed contracts keep players with a team longer.
He thinks that players will become more affordable and stay with a team longer for small market teams with a cap. It doesn't work that way.
Agree, and every league that has a cap also has a floor, so that’s a given.
I didn’t say you can keep every single player, but at least a team can choose who to keep. In the MLB, the small markets don’t get to keep any of them, so how is that a pro no-cap?
I suppose that’s an argument, but I don’t think it’s a net gain to cater to the big markets at the expense of the other 2/3 of the league. I would think you’re losing more fans and interest nationally than gaining, but that’s tough to measure. I think the free fall in ratings for MLB playoffs over the last 20-30 years would prove that, but I’d need to compare that to how ratings in the capped sports have changed to see if there’s any causation.
Your stance is that small market MLB teams get to keep their stars longer than MLB, NHL, and NBA? I'm sorry, I can't continue to discuss with you if that's a serious take, there's no point arguing with complete and obvious falsehoods.
A cap floor is a must for Major League Baseball to continue as is. I think by adding the DH to the National League it will increase the offense which will keep or increase in viewership. It will also in the National League probably eliminate one pitching change per game. I do like the 7-inning doubleheader aspect and they should require each team to play one double header per month at minimum in May June July and August.
How is it a given? You just said that small market teams aren’t pocketing money and owners don’t spend their own money. So where are they coming up with money to make it to the floor?
Every capped system has a cap, a floor, and revenue sharing. The revenue sharing allows for the floor. It works out for everyone because revenues improve with a better system.
That's right. By revenue sharing, the players share in the greater popularity of the sport: The entire pot goes up. By having a floor, you keep teams like Balt and Pitt from underspending in any particular season, hoping to stockpile prospects. The bottom line is that you get the players association and owners aligned that competitiveness and small-market viability is the best path for owners, players and fans.
Last edited:
Yes but with the salary minimum then jackass owners like nutting won't be able to just pocket the revenue-sharing as profit.
No I'm talking about MLB stars as a whole vs. the other 3 leagues(especially if you consider their time in the minors). You're talking about small MLB markets vs. the other 3 leagues.
So tell me, in your opinion, what would be a fair cap when looking at this? Keep in mind that if you add a cap you're getting rid of the luxury tax(revenue sharing) as well.
Opening day payrolls of Major League Baseball teams in 2020(in million U.S. dollars)
| Total payroll in million U.S. dollars | |
|---|---|
| New York Yankees | 254.19 |
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 227.83 |
| Houston Astros | 215.39 |
| Boston Red Sox | 191.05 |
| Chicago Cubs | 190.38 |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 183.7 |
| Los Angeles Angels | 179.59 |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 169.34 |
| New York Mets | 168.68 |
| Washington Nationals | 168.64 |
| San Francisco Giants | 163.2 |
| Atlanta Braves | 159.33 |
| Colorado Rockies | 157.28 |
| Texas Rangers | 153.59 |
| San Diego Padres | 153.12 |
| Cincinnati Reds | 143.14 |
| Minnesota Twins | 138.6 |
| Chicago White Sox | 130.25 |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 120.21 |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 110.76 |
| Detroit Tigers | 105.53 |
| Seattle Mariners | 102.71 |
| Milwaukee Brewers | 100.66 |
| Oakland Athletics | 95.46 |
| Cleveland Indians | 91.76 |
| Kansas City Royals | 86.58 |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 72.1 |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 63.31 |
| Baltimore Orioles | 59.99 |
| Miami Marlins | 58.99 |
MLB opening day payroll by team 2023 | Statista
The opening day payroll of teams in the MLB is calculated by combining the base salary, incentives, and any signing bonuses.
www.statista.com
don't forget that revenue sharing was a way to allow small-market teams to compete. They still couldn't. And they still don't (Rays lost their two best pitchers, CLE lost their superstar SS, Reds lost their Cy Young winner, etc.).No I'm talking about MLB stars as a whole vs. the other 3 leagues(especially if you consider their time in the minors). You're talking about small MLB markets vs. the other 3 leagues.
So tell me, in your opinion, what would be a fair cap when looking at this? Keep in mind that if you add a cap you're getting rid of the luxury tax(revenue sharing) as well.
Opening day payrolls of Major League Baseball teams in 2020(in million U.S. dollars)
Total payroll in million U.S. dollars New York Yankees 254.19 Los Angeles Dodgers 227.83 Houston Astros 215.39 Boston Red Sox 191.05 Chicago Cubs 190.38 Philadelphia Phillies 183.7 Los Angeles Angels 179.59 St. Louis Cardinals 169.34 New York Mets 168.68 Washington Nationals 168.64 San Francisco Giants 163.2 Atlanta Braves 159.33 Colorado Rockies 157.28 Texas Rangers 153.59 San Diego Padres 153.12 Cincinnati Reds 143.14 Minnesota Twins 138.6 Chicago White Sox 130.25 Arizona Diamondbacks 120.21 Toronto Blue Jays 110.76 Detroit Tigers 105.53 Seattle Mariners 102.71 Milwaukee Brewers 100.66 Oakland Athletics 95.46 Cleveland Indians 91.76 Kansas City Royals 86.58 Tampa Bay Rays 72.1 Pittsburgh Pirates 63.31 Baltimore Orioles 59.99 Miami Marlins 58.99
MLB opening day payroll by team 2023 | Statista
The opening day payroll of teams in the MLB is calculated by combining the base salary, incentives, and any signing bonuses.
Tell that to WB, he says the owners aren’t making any money.
Yet for some reason, billionaires keep lining up to buy teams
Yep. Triple(?) the luxury tax money (revenue sharing) and put a floor at $100 million(?) and make all teams open their books to keep it on the up and up. Numbers to be figured out by someone way smarter than me.
The rules of the luxury tax need to be changed as well. There's loopholes considering multipliers for consecutive years with a reset if a team is under for a season.
Yeah....I don't know the solution, specifically. I do recall that a big sticking point with the players is the owners' refusal to open their books. Do owners of other leagues open their books? IDK.
Yeah the Rays traded Snell to the 'small market' Padres. And the 'big market' Cubs traded Darvish to the 'small market' Padres. And the 'small market' Padres signed Manny Machado to a 300M contract. How is that possible?
