Should MLB have a salary cap?

You Might Like

More Polls By: heckler

Who liked it? 23

Jahiegel (+)
Milwaukee Brewers

dlduke20 (+)
St. Louis Cardinals

hartley51592 (+)
Boston Red Sox

dumpire5153 (+)
Seattle Mariners

Tk15b38 (+)
Jacksonville Jaguars

UltimateSureno (+)
Chicago Cubs

majikmanseven (+)
Milwaukee Brewers

qtowndogg (+)
Philadelphia Phillies

donm454 (+)
Philadelphia Phillies

The Wakka Man (+)
New York Mets

... and 13 other fans

MLB Results Skip to Next Poll »

Like it?

Should MLB have a salary cap? (Edited 01/07/08 10:47AM by Seth)

Featured by:

CriticalFanatic at 1/09/08 12:58PM
| Closed on 03/27/08 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | MLB | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll

113 Fans
69%	a. Yes
25%	b. No
6%	c. Who cares they're all on steroids

	&nbp;
TOP COMMENT
#1 \| 323 days ago KSbengals (+)	+9 They need a floor cap too, some of these teams should have to spend money too. If they would make a celling and floor cap, and figure out the ranges that the players wouldn't lose any money overall, maybe they could try and pass it that way. But since the players union has so much power, it will never happen. Yes
	Was this comment...? (7) (1)


81 Comments \| Sorted by Most Recent First \| Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 \| 323 days ago KSbengals (+)	+9 They need a floor cap too, some of these teams should have to spend money too. If they would make a celling and floor cap, and figure out the ranges that the players wouldn't lose any money overall, maybe they could try and pass it that way. But since the players union has so much power, it will never happen. Yes
	Was this comment...? (7) (1)
#2 \| 323 days ago bhopp4p1 (+)	+2 Ceiling and floor is the way to go. It's not like the owners don't have money. Yes
	Was this comment...? (2)
#3 \| 323 days ago ML31 (+)	+2 A salary floor is a terrible idea. If it were above a certain level, it would doom many teams. They would be forced into overpaying players just to stay above the floor. And it would keep teams from ever entering the rebuilding mode. Essentially, mediocre teams would be doomed to remain mediocre. If there were to be a floor, there would HAVE to be some kind of provision to allow teams to go below the floor for a period of time to rebuild. But that can't happen because even though teams obviously do this, they never announce they are. It would be a PR nightmare. In the end, a floor would do just as much damage to MLB as not having a ceiling. Also, that worthless luxury tax and current ineffective revenue sharing plan needs to be scrapped. Teams need to share their MEDIA money. That is the difference between the haves and have nots. Yes
	Was this comment...? (2)
#4 \| 323 days ago ML31 (+)	I was just thinking of a way a floor might work... The salary floor shouldn't just include salaries on the Major League roster. It might work if you include money spent on scouting, local contributions and marketing Or other ways to develop your team. Or maybe not. Just early thoughts... Yes
	Was this comment...?
#5 \| 322 days ago KSbengals (+)	+2 Obviously I disagree ML. If a team can't compete with a low end floor cap, then move or sell the team. In the current system we have teams like KC with one of the richest owners in baseball just raking in the revenue BS from the Yankees. The main reason to offer the floor cap would also be to show the players they wouldn't lose money overall, as the teams collectively would still be paying out the same money. If you go to the players union and say, were capping the high market teams, then that's a straight money loss to the players, and you have a strike. If you can find the salary balance and get the high/low caps in that range, then at least you'd have an argument Vs the players union. (and yes I know they still wouldn't agree to it, and it will never happen, as everyone is getting fat in the current system, and money is all that matters, not balance). Yes
	Was this comment...? (2)
#6 \| 322 days ago ML31 (+)	KSbengals wrote: Obviously I disagree ML. If a team can't compete with a low end floor cap, then move or sell the team. In the current system we have teams like KC with one of the richest owners in baseball just raking in the revenue BS from the Yankees. The main reason to offer the floor cap would also be to show the players they wouldn't lose money overall, as the teams collectively would still be paying out the same money. If you go to the players union and say, were capping the high market teams, then that's a straight money loss to the players, and you have a strike. If you can find the salary balance and get the high/low caps in that range, then at least you'd have an argument Vs the players union. (and yes I know they still wouldn't agree to it, and it will never happen, as everyone is getting fat in the current system, and money is all that matters, not balance). If a team moved because of why you said, they would still be in the same boat, just a different town. Doomed to mediocrity forever. That is what a floor would do. Yes, not only would the players reject it, they already have. MLB offered a floor back in '94 and it was rejected outright by the players. Because it came with a cap as well. I will agree on one point... All the teams are now at least breaking even because of this idiot luxury tax and foolish revenue sharing. So the teams that were whining years ago have been shut up because of this. Unfortunately for the fans, this has not helped the competitive balance of the league. The teams that throw money at players still tend to win more often than they lose. And the teams that can't afford to spend the money still tend to lose more than they win. And as long as the lower revenue teams are getting money from the high revenue teams, there is no incentive among the owners to change the format. Even if it means the overall product of Major League Baseball would be better if the economics of the game were overhauled. Yes
	Was this comment...?
#7 \| 322 days ago bhopp4p1 (+)	ML31 wrote: A salary floor is a terrible idea. If it were above a certain level, it would doom many teams. They would be forced into overpaying players just to stay above the floor. And it would keep teams from ever entering the rebuilding mode. Essentially, mediocre teams would be doomed to remain mediocre. If there were to be a floor, there would HAVE to be some kind of provision to allow teams to go below the floor for a period of time to rebuild. But that can't happen because even though teams obviously do this, they never announce they are. It would be a PR nightmare. In the end, a floor would do just as much damage to MLB as not having a ceiling. Also, that worthless luxury tax and current ineffective revenue sharing plan needs to be scrapped. Teams need to share their MEDIA money. That is the difference between the haves and have nots. I look at it like this. There is going to be between 15 and 20 players who by themselves will make more money than the Marlins. Yes
	Was this comment...?
#8 \| 322 days ago ML31 (+)	bhopp4p1 wrote: I look at it like this. There is going to be between 15 and 20 players who by themselves will make more money than the Marlins. +2 So how would a salary floor help? The net effect would be the Marlins would be forced to overpay their players. You would have 1st 2nd and 3rd year players making $5 million when they obviously haven't produced enough to earn that kind of bread. How does this help make the Marlins more competitive? Yes
	Was this comment...? (2)
#9 \| 322 days ago bhopp4p1 (+)	ML31 wrote: So how would a salary floor help? The net effect would be the Marlins would be forced to overpay their players. You would have 1st 2nd and 3rd year players making $5 million when they obviously haven't produced enough to earn that kind of bread. How does this help make the Marlins more competitive? Force them to spend money on better talent. It seems any time they get a good team together, fire sale. Yes
	Was this comment...?
#10 \| 322 days ago ML31 (+)	bhopp4p1 wrote: Force them to spend money on better talent. It seems any time they get a good team together, fire sale. So, teams should be FORCED to spend money they may or may not have on players they may or may not need JUST to remain above the salary floor? This doesn't sound like it will help the Marlins get better. Is sounds like a plan designed to make the team lose value. Yes
	Was this comment...?
#11 \| 322 days ago bhopp4p1 (+)	The team loses value when they don't have a competitive team, doesn't draw fans, and has no players worth following because they'll be gone in 2 years anyway. Yes
	Was this comment...?
#12 \| 322 days ago ML31 (+)	So like I said. A salary floor would not be an improvement over the current format. Yes
	Was this comment...?
#13 \| 322 days ago bhopp4p1 (+)	Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Good players, who could help teams like Florida win won't go there because owners like Jeff Loria don't spend on talent. People will pay to see a good product, not teams that lose andwill continue to lose with lack of quality players. Yes
	Was this comment...?
#14 \| 322 days ago ML31 (+)	The original owner of the Marlins thought that if he spent lots of money on players and won a lot that his team would make a lot of money. It didn't happen and then next year cut his losses and dumped all the high priced talent. There simply are not enough teams like the Angles, Dodgers or Yankees who can spend and spend with little chance of losing that investment. Smaller revenue teams simply cannot afford to take the risk. So they simply don't. And to be perfectly honest, I think it unreasonable to blame them of not taking that risk when everyone who has in the past has time and time again came out on the losing end of things. Money-wise. Not on-the-field-wise. Yes
	Was this comment...?
#15 \| 322 days ago bhopp4p1 (+)	The Marlins were 8th in attendance in 1997 when they won there first World Series. They dropped to 15th in '98. When your 8th in attendance, your not losing money. Yes
	Was this comment...?