Does baseball need a salary Cap

[darell1976]

Does baseball need a salary cap like the NFL?

Yes

No

[darell1976]

If baseball had a cap like the NFL there would be so much equality in baseball that the Yankees or Red Sox can't buy their championships every year. We would see more teams in the WS like the Twins, Athletics, Rays, Marlins, Indians. Its getting old that the Yankees can buy their way into the playoffs year after year.

[Gil Dobie]

I am against the salary cap. Twins, Athletics, Rays, Marlins, Indians have all been in and 3 have won the World Series in the last 20 years. Carl Pohlad was the riches owner in baseball during his tenure. He was more concerned with profit margin though.

[HiHiYikas]

I say no...not without a very high salary floor, at least.

The Yankees spend almost 60% of their revenue on payroll, while more than half of mlb teams spend less than 50%. The Nationals, who had the highest operating income in baseball in 2007, spend less than 25% of their revenue on payroll.

I didn't pay enough attention in business class to know exactly what all this means, but I'm guessing the whole situation is way more complex than most fans assume.

I'd suggest they take revenue (including revenue sharing monies received), and divide it in two. That's your floor. This season, it would be in the $75 million range - meaning more than a third of the teams in baseball would need to increase their payrolls.

[89Hen]

The Yankees spend almost 60% of their revenue on payroll, while more than half of mlb teams spend less than 50%. The Nationals, who had the highest operating income in baseball in 2007, spend less than 25% of their revenue on payroll.

I didn't pay enough attention in business class to know exactly what all this means, but I'm guessing the whole situation is way more complex than most fans assume.
I would say that's probably true (the part about it being more complex).

How could the Nats have the highest operating income? The new stadium is half full and I don't see anyone in town with Nats merchandise. They barely have a TV contract. Either I'm not understanding what operating income is, or that stat is way off.

As for being able to spend 60%... that's a very misleading stat. There is NO WAY that anyone is close to the Yankees in total income. If I have $1B in income, it's easy for me to spend $600M on payroll, leaving me $400M for everything else. Compare that to a team like the Pirates who have $500M in income and spending let's say only 40% on payroll. $500M - $200M = $300M. End of the day, the Yankees STILL have more money.

[HiHiYikas]

I would say that's probably true (the part about it being more complex).

How could the Nats have the highest operating income? The new stadium is half full and I don't see anyone in town with Nats merchandise. They barely have a TV contract. Either I'm not understanding what operating income is, or that stat is way off.

As for being able to spend 60%... that's a very misleading stat. There is NO WAY that anyone is close to the Yankees in total income. If I have $1B in income, it's easy for me to spend $600M on payroll, leaving me $400M for everything else. Compare that to a team like the Pirates who have $500M in income and spending let's say only 40% on payroll. $500M - $200M = $300M. End of the day, the Yankees STILL have more money.
I'm not sure how the Nats managed that...but that's what Forbes tells me (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Income.html), so I assume it's reliable. The Nats finished 2007 with $43.7 million in operating income. Incidentally, the Yankees finished that year at the bottom of the MLB heap with negative $47.3 million in income.

And the payroll as %age of revenue might be a little misleading, but the Yankees aren't head-and-shoulders above the league in that stat (not percentage-wise, anyway). The Orioles, White Sox, Tigers, Mariners, Angels, and Red Sox all spend in the 55% range, while the Yankees are a little over 57%.

[89Hen]

And the payroll as %age of revenue might be a little misleading, but the Yankees aren't head-and-shoulders above the league in that stat (not percentage-wise, anyway). The Orioles, White Sox, Tigers, Mariners, Angels, and Red Sox all spend in the 55% range, while the Yankees are a little over 57%.
But a salary cap isn't a percentage. xpeacex

[89Hen]

I'm not sure how the Nats managed that...but that's what Forbes tells me (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Income.html), so I assume it's reliable. The Nats finished 2007 with $43.7 million in operating income. Incidentally, the Yankees finished that year at the bottom of the MLB heap with negative $47.3 million in income.
I'm sure a lot of this math is like the salary cap math teams do. One thing that stands out to me is revenue...

Yankees = $327M
Nationals = $153M

[Ivytalk]

No. I'm a free-market guy and don't believe in salary caps.* The Yankees obviously don't win the WS every year.

*Except maybe for politicians.xrolleyesx

[Thunderstruck84]

I want to say yes and no. Yes, a salary cap is needed to level the playing field but a salary floor is also needed so teams with cheapskate owners like the Marlins, Pirates, and Twins can't just pocket the revenue sharing money. I think that's the only way you can sell it to the players union in a CBA also. I also don't think there needs to be a hard salary cap like the NFL but more of a soft salary cap with a luxury tax system like the NBA has. So if teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers want to overspend the cap, they have to pay the luxury tax associated with it.

[HiHiYikas]

But a salary cap isn't a percentage. xpeacex
Right...I'm not exactly addressing the topic at hand, I know.

But if we're going to talk about ways to fabricate parity in baseball (was that the Rays I saw in the World Series last year?), we've got to own up to the fact that nearly every team generates at least $140 million in revenue, but a lot of teams don't spend that money on payroll. I think that's a significant issue.

I would suppose that a salary cap could be calculated based on something like revenues, but it's not fair to penalize the teams that make money and spend it on payroll while ignoring the fact that plenty of teams with money refuse to spend it on players.

Of course, this is all hypothetical to me. Like I said, I'm against a cap.

[TheValleyRaider]

Saw this yesterday, thought it was an interesting look at the situation:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8409

[tribe_pride]

I'm not sure how the Nats managed that...but that's what Forbes tells me (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Income.html), so I assume it's reliable. The Nats finished 2007 with $43.7 million in operating income. Incidentally, the Yankees finished that year at the bottom of the MLB heap with negative $47.3 million in income.

And the payroll as %age of revenue might be a little misleading, but the Yankees aren't head-and-shoulders above the league in that stat (not percentage-wise, anyway). The Orioles, White Sox, Tigers, Mariners, Angels, and Red Sox all spend in the 55% range, while the Yankees are a little over 57%.

Would be interesting to know if the Yankee income includes the YES network or just baseball operations because while the Yanks are a baseball team, that's not the only income they receive.

[NHwildEcat]

I think a salary floor is more important than a salary cap. Most of those "low-budget" teams receive a healthy piece of change from those such as the Yankees ans Red Sox etc...and they just pocket it and that is it. They should have to spend that money on players salaries and only that.

If a team cannot afford to do that then maybe they should rethink their business model or sell to owners who can afford to support the team..or in a worse case scenario move the team!

[NHwildEcat]

Would be interesting to know if the Yankee income includes the YES network or just baseball operations because while the Yanks are a baseball team, that's not the only income they receive.

Good point. The Red Sox have a majority stake in the NESN network up here, so I wonder if that figure goes into thier baseball operations figures.

[GannonFan]

Of course there should be one, but there won't ever be. And as such, fans of the Pittsburgh Pirates can safely assume that they won't win a World Series title for decades to come. When a whole handful of teams know when the season starts that they have no prayer of winning the World Series you know there's a problem, but players will never, ever allow a salary cap so it's almost a non-issue. Baseball has always been about big market teams dominating the sport. It's not like the Yankees were on a level playing field with the rest of the sport when they won the majority of their titles in the 30's, 40's and 50's. It was even worse then.

[89Hen]

But if we're going to talk about ways to fabricate parity in baseball (was that the Rays I saw in the World Series last year?)
World Series appearances in the 15 years since the strike:

Yankees - 7
Red Sox - 2
Indians - 2
Angels - 1
ChiSox - 1
Tigers - 1
Rays - 1

So if the Yanks make it again next year, they will have as many appearances as all the other teams combined. xeyebrowx

[89Hen]

No. I'm a free-market guy and don't believe in salary caps.* The Yankees obviously don't win the WS every year.

*Except maybe for politicians.xrolleyesx
See above.

[GannonFan]

World Series appearances in the 15 years since the strike:

Yankees - 7
Red Sox - 2
Indians - 2
Angels - 1
ChiSox - 1
Tigers - 1
Rays - 1

So if the Yanks make it again next year, they will have as many appearances as all the other teams combined. xeyebrowx

Yup, the idea of parity in baseball is laughable. Sure a little guy squeaks in every now and then, but most of the time the big guys rule. Heck, even when the Marlins won they won by going for it all in one year, and then dismantling the team the next year since they couldn't sustain that spending.

Figure this, the Yankees just spent around $2 Billion dollars on player salaries between their last title in 2000 and the title this year (9 years). It'll take the Pirates 50 years to spend the same amount of money on players.

[NHwildEcat]

Yup, the idea of parity in baseball is laughable. Sure a little guy squeaks in every now and then, but most of the time the big guys rule. Heck, even when the Marlins won they won by going for it all in one year, and then dismantling the team the next year since they couldn't sustain that spending.

Figure this, the Yankees just spent around $2 Billion dollars on player salaries between their last title in 2000 and the title this year (9 years). It'll take the Pirates 50 years to spend the same amount of money on players.

When you break it out like that the comparsion between spending really hits you. Most people think on the year to year basis but wow, when you add it up over time it sure does end up being a huge difference.

It is like have a homebrewer going head to head with Bud...it just ends up being the same each time.

[NHwildEcat]

When I think of salary caps, I think of hockey and how the salary cap is ruining that sport. It is laughable what teams are held to in regards to salaries. The problem with their cap is they make it so that those pointless Florida and other Mason-Dixon teams can keep up financially when they shouldn't and in all honesty can't truely keep up.

Not that I would say they don't need a salary cap because they do. But a salary cap should be fair to all teams not just helping the cheap owners of the small markets.

[89Hen]

When I think of salary caps, I think of hockey and how the salary cap is ruining that sport. It is laughable what teams are held to in regards to salaries. The problem with their cap is they make it so that those pointless Florida and other Mason-Dixon teams can keep up financially when they shouldn't and in all honesty can't truely keep up.
Would you rather those teams just fold? Last I looked, the Southeast teams still sucked big time.

[GannonFan]

When I think of salary caps, I think of hockey and how the salary cap is ruining that sport. It is laughable what teams are held to in regards to salaries. The problem with their cap is they make it so that those pointless Florida and other Mason-Dixon teams can keep up financially when they shouldn't and in all honesty can't truely keep up.

Not that I would say they don't need a salary cap because they do. But a salary cap should be fair to all teams not just helping the cheap owners of the small markets.

Hockey's salary cay is a bad example. And the NBA has the added issue that if you don't have a star player you just can't win. Football's got the best salary cap, especially in order to help build parity, but the players could be revolting against that system in the upcoming labor strife so even that system may be untenable. In the end, the players want as much money as they can get, parity be damned.

[89Hen]

Hockey's salary cay is a bad example.
Why?

[GannonFan]

Would you rather those teams just fold? Last I looked, the Southeast teams still sucked big time.

Hockey would be far better served if they retracted significantly. One of their major problems is that they vastly overextended the sport to places it will never flourish, besides just spreading out the talent.

[GannonFan]

Why?


Too easy to work around it. Teams with lots of money still are able to stockpile talent.

[NHwildEcat]

Would you rather those teams just fold? Last I looked, the Southeast teams still sucked big time.

Yes I would. If they cannot afford to put out a team that is competitive and will atleast draw in fans, yet they still keep "trying", then those teams should go. If a business is failing, you have to eventually cut ties with it.

There are too many teams anyways in most professional sports leagues.

[NHwildEcat]

Hockey's salary cay is a bad example. And the NBA has the added issue that if you don't have a star player you just can't win. Football's got the best salary cap, especially in order to help build parity, but the players could be revolting against that system in the upcoming labor strife so even that system may be untenable. In the end, the players want as much money as they can get, parity be damned.

Yes but with some NFL franchises they have problems paying for the salaries they have on board. If there was no salary cap a few teams I am sure would be cutting salaries just so they could stay afloat.

[89Hen]

Hockey would be far better served if they retracted significantly. One of their major problems is that they vastly overextended the sport to places it will never flourish, besides just spreading out the talent.


Yes I would. If they cannot afford to put out a team that is competitive and will atleast draw in fans, yet they still keep "trying", then those teams should go. If a business is failing, you have to eventually cut ties with it.

There are too many teams anyways in most professional sports leagues.
I will have to disagree. Having the NHL in more cities is a good thing IMO. The top team in the NHL draws about 900,000 for the season. Nobody is under 500,000 (although Phoenix has a shot this year).

[GannonFan]

Yes but with some NFL franchises they have problems paying for the salaries they have on board. If there was no salary cap a few teams I am sure would be cutting salaries just so they could stay afloat.


What NFL teams are struggling to pay salaries? Maybe Buffalo, but anyone else?

[NHwildEcat]

What NFL teams are struggling to pay salaries? Maybe Buffalo, but anyone else?

I was reading a peice in SI...but I cannot remember all the specifics it was a few weeks back now. But I believe the Rams came up as a team that would prefer to spend less on salary but cannot due to the salary cap rules. I'll see if I can dig up the article online.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

Yes...baseball sucks and this is one of the main reasons.

NFL>>>>>>>MLB

[89Hen]

When did the salary cap start in the NHL? Do you want to go back to...

1973–74 Philadelphia Flyers > Boston Bruins
1974–75 Philadelphia Flyers > Buffalo Sabres
1975–76 Montreal Canadiens > Philadelphia Flyers
1976–77 Montreal Canadiens > Boston Bruins
1977–78 Montreal Canadiens > Boston Bruins
1978–79 Montreal Canadiens > New York Rangers
1979–80 New York Islanders > Philadelphia Flyers
1980–81 New York Islanders > Minnesota North Stars
1981–82 New York Islanders > Vancouver Canucks
1982–83 New York Islanders > Edmonton Oilers
1983–84 Edmonton Oilers > New York Islanders
1984–85 Edmonton Oilers > Philadelphia Flyers
1985–86 Montreal Canadiens > Calgary Flames
1986–87 Edmonton Oilers > Philadelphia Flyers
1987–88 Edmonton Oilers > Boston Bruins
1988–89 Calgary Flames > Montreal Canadiens
1989–90 Edmonton Oilers > Boston Bruins
1990–91 Pittsburgh Penguins > Minnesota North Stars
1991–92 Pittsburgh Penguins > Chicago Blackhawks

Some of the younger guys probably don't remember how it was the same teams year after year after year.

[GannonFan]

I will have to disagree. Having the NHL in more cities is a good thing IMO. The top team in the NHL draws about 900,000 for the season. Nobody is under 500,000 (although Phoenix has a shot this year).

Isn't 500k something like 12k people per game? That's not really sustainable economically in hockey, especially with the absence of other significant revenue (i.e. national TV contract). If a team is not filling their building regularly (say 18k per game or 740,000 per year) then they're going to be on the edge financially in hockey. I don't know the answer, but how many teams are doing that?

[NHwildEcat]

When did the salary cap start in the NHL? Do you want to go back to...

1973–74 Philadelphia Flyers > Boston Bruins
1974–75 Philadelphia Flyers > Buffalo Sabres
1975–76 Montreal Canadiens > Philadelphia Flyers
1976–77 Montreal Canadiens > Boston Bruins
1977–78 Montreal Canadiens > Boston Bruins
1978–79 Montreal Canadiens > New York Rangers
1979–80 New York Islanders > Philadelphia Flyers
1980–81 New York Islanders > Minnesota North Stars
1981–82 New York Islanders > Vancouver Canucks
1982–83 New York Islanders > Edmonton Oilers
1983–84 Edmonton Oilers > New York Islanders
1984–85 Edmonton Oilers > Philadelphia Flyers
1985–86 Montreal Canadiens > Calgary Flames
1986–87 Edmonton Oilers > Philadelphia Flyers
1987–88 Edmonton Oilers > Boston Bruins
1988–89 Calgary Flames > Montreal Canadiens
1989–90 Edmonton Oilers > Boston Bruins
1990–91 Pittsburgh Penguins > Minnesota North Stars
1991–92 Pittsburgh Penguins > Chicago Blackhawks

Some of the younger guys probably don't remember how it was the same teams year after year after year.

Well as a fan of the Bruins...I don't really care salary cap or no salary cap I just want us to win. LOL.

[NHwildEcat]

Isn't 500k something like 12k people per game? That's not really sustainable economically in hockey, especially with the absence of other significant revenue (i.e. national TV contract). If a team is not filling their building regularly (say 18k per game or 740,000 per year) then they're going to be on the edge financially in hockey. I don't know the answer, but how many teams are doing that?

None of the teams in the south.

[GannonFan]

I was reading a peice in SI...but I cannot remember all the specifics it was a few weeks back now. But I believe the Rams came up as a team that would prefer to spend less on salary but cannot due to the salary cap rules. I'll see if I can dig up the article online.

I could see that, and I think Jacksonville might be the other. But that's just 3 teams out of 32, and moving a team to LA is still an option for at least one of them, especially with that new stadium being given the green light. And really, it's only the current economy that has hurt a team like Jacksonville. If we get out of this recession (in reality, not just technically) then that problem goes away.

[gmoney55]

What NFL teams are struggling to pay salaries? Maybe Buffalo, but anyone else?

They really aren't...they don't spend wisely obviously, but they've sold out the stadium for going on 5 years in a row now and gave pretty big contracts to the likes of Langston Walker, Derrick Dockery, etc..Ralph Wilson wants everyone to believe they have no money, but it's not the case.

[89Hen]

NHL teams playoff droughts longer than two years...

Florida Panthers - 8 seasons
Los Angeles Kings - 6 seasons
Phoenix Coyotes - 6 seasons
Toronto Maple Leafs - 4 seasons
Edmonton Oilers - 3 seasons


NBA...

Minnesota Timberwolves - 5 seasons
New York Knicks - 5 seasons
Charlotte Bobcats - 5 seasons
Oklahoma City Thunder - 4 seasons
Indiana Pacers - 3 seasons
Los Angeles Clippers - 3 seasons
Memphis Grizzlies - 3 seasons
Milwaukee Bucks - 3 seasons
Sacramento King - 3 seasons

[89Hen]

If a team is not filling their building regularly (say 18k per game or 740,000 per year) then they're going to be on the edge financially in hockey.
On the edge is fine. Exposure to more markets is worth it.

[darell1976]

NHL teams playoff droughts longer than two years...

Florida Panthers - 8 seasons
Los Angeles Kings - 6 seasons
Phoenix Coyotes - 6 seasons
Toronto Maple Leafs - 4 seasons
Edmonton Oilers - 3 seasons


NBA...

Minnesota Timberwolves - 5 seasons
New York Knicks - 5 seasons
Charlotte Bobcats - 5 seasons
Oklahoma City Thunder - 4 seasons
Indiana Pacers - 3 seasons
Los Angeles Clippers - 3 seasons
Memphis Grizzlies - 3 seasons
Milwaukee Bucks - 3 seasons
Sacramento King - 3 seasons

Look what happens when you don't build a team around KG..he leaves to Boston then you have what....NOTHING!!

[darell1976]

NHL teams playoff droughts longer than two years...

Florida Panthers - 8 seasons
Los Angeles Kings - 6 seasons
Phoenix Coyotes - 6 seasons
Toronto Maple Leafs - 4 seasons
Edmonton Oilers - 3 seasons


NBA...

Minnesota Timberwolves - 5 seasons
New York Knicks - 5 seasons
Charlotte Bobcats - 5 seasons
Oklahoma City Thunder - 4 seasons
Indiana Pacers - 3 seasons
Los Angeles Clippers - 3 seasons
Memphis Grizzlies - 3 seasons
Milwaukee Bucks - 3 seasons
Sacramento King - 3 seasons

Please Please move back to Winnipeg!!!!

[GannonFan]

Look what happens when you don't build a team around KG..he leaves to Boston then you have what....NOTHING!!

Well, truth be told, if you don't have another legit star to fill in, you've still got nothing. No one wins anything in the NBA without at least one legit star on the roster. If you have two, you can win a title.

[93henfan]

NHL teams playoff droughts longer than two years...

Florida Panthers - 8 seasons
Los Angeles Kings - 6 seasons
Phoenix Coyotes - 6 seasons
Toronto Maple Leafs - 4 seasons
Edmonton Oilers - 3 seasons



That one sticks out big time. That team has so many resources at its disposal that it boggles the mind that they haven't won a Stanley Cup in forever.

[GannonFan]

That one sticks out big time. That team has so many resources at its disposal that it boggles the mind that they haven't won a Stanley Cup in forever.

Even with money and resources, stupid is as stupid does. Money can't overcome that. xnodx

[89Hen]

That one sticks out big time. That team has so many resources at its disposal that it boggles the mind that they haven't won a Stanley Cup in forever.
Agreed. Haven't won since the final year of the Original 6. xconfusedx

[GannonFan]

Good article here on the disparity of spending by the Yankees versus anyone (yes, even the Red Sox):

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/11/05/yankees.payroll/index.html?eref=sihp

some excerpts:


There's something else that people say: They talk about how money doesn't guarantee wins. And they point out that other teams (the Mets, the Cubs, the Astros, etc.) spend a lot of money and don't win. I think this actually makes for an interesting argument if you want to talk about the inequities of baseball... big markets, small markets, all that.

But the Yankees are a whole different argument. They are their own argument. The Yankees are not a big-market team. They DWARF big-market teams. They are quantitatively different from every other team in baseball and every other team in American sports. They don't just spend more money than every other team. They spend A LOT more money than every other team. The Boston Red Sox spend $50 million more than the Kansas City Royals? Who cares? The Yankees spend $80 million more than the Boston Red Sox.


And then: That team that spent $50 million more than any other team, that team with three sure Hall of Famers and as many as four others, that team that bought Milwaukee's best pitcher and Anaheim's best hitter and Toronto's No. 2 starter and Boston's favorite Idiot and the most expensive player in the history of baseball and so on, that team will win the World Series, and spray champagne on each other, and they will tell you that they won because they came together as a group and kept pulling themselves off the ground and didn't listen to the doubters.

And then, if you are a not a Yankees fan, you will want to throw up. If you are not a Yankees fan, you are left hoping that next year the randomness of a short playoff series will get the Yankees and allow some other team to win so we can celebrate the hope of Opening Day. And that's baseball.

[bluehenbillk]

I haven't paged through this whole thread so excuse me if these ideas have been brought up. I don't like a cap like the NHL & NBA has because once your team sucks, unless you get a difference-maker 1st round pick, it means you'll suck for a long time. At least in the NFL you can dump contracts as most $$ isn't guaranteed.

I'd propose two things: One would be a salary floor. Teams like the Pirates, the Royals, the Marlins & the Nationals among others are jokes with what they pay or don't pay their playing talent. If you're going to put some kind of ceiling on teams you have to get the low end teams to ante up to a point. I don't know if I like a true salary cap, but put some kind of escalating luxury tax out there when teams go over a certain dollar figure that will dissuade pretty much everybody, including the Yankees from going overboard. Something like the 1st 10 mil you're over the cap you pay a dollar-to-dollar tax to the league. 10-20 mil over you pay a 2:1 tax. 20-30 mil over a 3:1 tax and so on. Meaning if you go 100 mil over the cap you'd have to pay a billion dollar tax, you can get the picture that would keep EVERYONE in check.

[UNHWildCats]

damn right we need a salary cap. Here's a number to digest.

As of today the Yankees have 10 players under contract for 2010 with an actual monetary value. (this excludes arbitration and renewable players)

The total 2010 value of those 10 contracts is $166 million.

Those 10 players will be paid more then any other entire team in 2010.

The Yankees obviously have a number of low value guys next season, but with an OF spot to fill as well as a potential starting catcher (if Posada becomes everyday DH) and maybe a top SP via free agency, the Yankees have the potential to top $200 million on just 13 players.

[UNHWildCats]

I haven't paged through this whole thread so excuse me if these ideas have been brought up. I don't like a cap like the NHL & NBA has because once your team sucks, unless you get a difference-maker 1st round pick, it means you'll suck for a long time. At least in the NFL you can dump contracts as most $$ isn't guaranteed.

I'd propose two things: One would be a salary floor. Teams like the Pirates, the Royals, the Marlins & the Nationals among others are jokes with what they pay or don't pay their playing talent. If you're going to put some kind of ceiling on teams you have to get the low end teams to ante up to a point. I don't know if I like a true salary cap, but put some kind of escalating luxury tax out there when teams go over a certain dollar figure that will dissuade pretty much everybody, including the Yankees from going overboard. Something like the 1st 10 mil you're over the cap you pay a dollar-to-dollar tax to the league. 10-20 mil over you pay a 2:1 tax. 20-30 mil over a 3:1 tax and so on. Meaning if you go 100 mil over the cap you'd have to pay a billion dollar tax, you can get the picture that would keep EVERYONE in check.
the NBA cap is a joke, how many years were the Knicks 100%+ over the cap.

[UNHWildCats]

Good article here on the disparity of spending by the Yankees versus anyone (yes, even the Red Sox):

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/11/05/yankees.payroll/index.html?eref=sihp

some excerpts:
When I discuss the Yankees and payroll the first response back is I shouldnt complain cause Boston spends too...

Something people need to realize is that Boston spends what they do because they are forced to, they surely would prefer to spend less, but they have two choices;


1. Don't spend to compete with the Yankees and not be able to compete year after year with them.

2. Spend what you can to close the gap some to remain competitive as best you can.

[GannonFan]

When I discuss the Yankees and payroll the first response back is I shouldnt complain cause Boston spends too...

Something people need to realize is that Boston spends what they do because they are forced to, they surely would prefer to spend less, but they have two choices;


1. Don't spend to compete with the Yankees and not be able to compete year after year with them.

2. Spend what you can to close the gap some to remain competitive as best you can.

And people who rip the Red Sox are probably doing so just because they don't like Boston or its fans. Because in reality, Boston spends only marginally more than the likes of the Mets and the Phillies and the Dodgers and the Cardinals and the other host of teams that make up the #2 to #12 or so highest spenders. The gap between those teams is pretty small and unimportant, and pales in comparison to the difference between the #2 and the #1 spending team.

[LacesOut]

I'll say no.

Keep baseball different from the other big professional sports.

I can't fault the Yankees for generating revenue and spending generously for players.

[ngineer]

I am against the salary cap. Twins, Athletics, Rays, Marlins, Indians have all been in and 3 have won the World Series in the last 20 years. Carl Pohlad was the riches owner in baseball during his tenure. He was more concerned with profit margin though.

True, BUT those teams only get momentary bumps. They get a bunch of good players, make the playoffs, maybe even the WS, BUT then they're free agents and gone because the small markets can't keep them. The Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Dodgers, will always be smelling the playoffs because the can afford to buy the talent to keep them competitive EVERY year. So, yes, we can allow the small markets to develop a lot of the talent, but then let it get hired away when it ripens.xsmhx