Are you in favor of a mandatory salary cap/floor in MLB?

I voted "Yes, MLB Should Have Cap and Floor" and I believe that the cap and floor should be determined using percentage of average MLB team revenues.

 

If the average MLB team brings in $120 million a season, let them spend say 40-75% of that on payroll.

I voted cap and floor maybe this is Marlins bias but cap and floor gives us and a majority of teams the opportunity to retain our players while remaining competitive on a yearly basis. additonally it eliminates the excuse of poorly mananged teams like the devil rays ...we stink because we cant compete with the yankees and redsox

After the Marlins 2006 shenanagins, I think there should a floor.

 

I like revenue sharing and the luxury tax, but a cap really isn't necessary. Spending $200 million a year doesn't work.

After the Marlins 2006 shenanagins, I think there should a floor.

 

I like revenue sharing and the luxury tax, but a cap really isn't necessary. Spending $200 million a year doesn't work.

 

yup

I voted cap and floor maybe this is Marlins bias but cap and floor gives us and a majority of teams the opportunity to retain our players while remaining competitive on a yearly basis. additonally it eliminates the excuse of poorly mananged teams like the devil rays ...we stink because we cant compete with the yankees and redsox

 

That would be be generally be my opinion.

 

Cap? Floor? It's all relative but in the end if it takes another strike to end the payroll insanity go for it. I thought the Devil Rays analogy was excellent. The one issue that would concern me with a floor would be in an extended economic recession the minor league systems would probably be damaged the most among lower tier of major league clubs, and that could have long term consequences for those franchises and the game.

 

Huizenga has succeeded in his decade long quest to ruin any chance the Marlins get a new stadium anywhere down here with the stadium deal currently no longer on life support but as of now dead on arrival. Masterfully done MFer. And I bring that up because it could happen in other cities at some point in the future or for other reasons unforseen, so the issue of how caps and floors are determined has to be carefully studied to make allowances for a myriad of what-ifs.

I dont know what I am in favor of. Cap, floor, it doesnt really matter as far as the Fish go, as the floor would be where we are at every year.

Unlike all other sports a salary cap won't affect baseball, it'll just give teams like the Yankees and Redsox an advantage since they seem to be one of the few willing to pay a luxury tax. Only solution to this problem is to make revenue sharing much more than it already is.

Wow 31 votes in such a short time, I wasn't expecting that. This issue is of some interest here I can see that.

 

On previous polls I've run, I've been accused of making remarks when I posted the poll that influenced the results. So this time I forced myself not to make any remarks myself when posting the poll questions in order to get a fair sampling of what Marlins fans think.

No. Then you would have to get rid of arbitration and service years. You do that, and we don't have Miguel Cabrera or Hanley Ramirez or a lot of other young studs. They'd instead go to where the money is. Money we don't have.

 

We're able to be competitive because there is no salary restrictions.

Id say floor only because if teams like the yankees want to spend 200 million to finish .500 id say let them. But a floor would greatly help bottom revenue teams keep players or add players if they are in a close playoff race

The Marlins won 2 WS under this system, for that alone I voted that it should stay the same. After 2006 I am warming up to a floor. I don't think a cap has any affect really, the amount you spend on your team does not correlate to winning.

I'm against it, although I could live with a hard cap, and only a hard cap.

 

The system in place in MLB (Robin Hood revenue sharing) is meant to put all teams (or rather all intelligently and honestly run teams) on the same playing field. It is meant to give the Marlins and Devil Rays the resources to put a competitive, maintainable team on the field. In essence, it's major league welfare. We get the check until we're able to sustain ourselves, then we start paying into the system. Unfortunately, teams pocket the check more often than they spend it, and in the case of the Marlins, they just piss on the whole system.

 

I'm opposed to a salary floor because I think that just encourages bad investments. Because the Marlins can field a decent team all making the minimum they shouldn't be punished. Where they should be punished is not spending all of their welfare money. I think small market teams need to demonstrate 90% spending of the check or lose the check indefinitely. And, I'd allow the spending to be more lenient. Odds are any team put together on the cheap has at least one cornerstone player. The check could be spent on a long term deal for that player. It doesn't handcuff the team because the financial commitment is essentially made by Major League baseball, and it promotes stability. If a team like the Marlins, who get $41 million in revenue sharing annually, doesn't spend $41 million annually on the team, they need to demonstrate at least $36 million in negotiated future commitments, not the cloudy veil of arbitration.

 

A cap won't help a team keep their guys unless we adopt the NBA incumbency advantage in contract offers. All a cap will do is keep your guys from being a Yankee or Red Sox, but if they're gone to Arizona, they're still gone.

MLB needs to get a handle on local TV/radio money. That's what allows teams like the Red Sox and Yankees to have $100M+ payrolls.

 

A cap will never work in MLB with the current strength of the MLBPA.

salary cap and floor. we need both.

hard cap and hard floor, with "Admin Bird" rule whereby a player with long-term ties to the team can be signed with limited cap implications.

MLB needs to get a handle on local TV/radio money. That's what allows teams like the Red Sox and Yankees to have $100M+ payrolls.

 

Bingo.

Before you can have either, you must have all teams able to succeed within that range. The present system is unable to do that for the Marlins and a few other teams. Further, any salary cap or floor would likely call for changes in the reserve system, that restrains young players' salaries, that would burden those teams.

 

And that's not even considering the merits of payroll regulations. If all teams are operating within a certain range, it will be those teams whose front offices and coaching staffs are able to build teams of superior talent that win. Instead of the Yankees and Red Sox winning because they can pay for five $15MM superstars, the Yankees and Red Sox will win because they'll have the cache (tradition, media market, fan base, etc.) and the cash to attract players, coaches, managers, scouts and other personnel. You're merely replacing one inequality for another. And while it may still be fun to watch (see the salary cap discussions on realgm.com, all 400 pages of the threads), you merely create a situation for more roster turn over, more salary disputes, more labor problems, etc. that are not fun at all.

 

Baseball isn't a laboratory. (Despite what George Mitchell thinks). Let the teams play. Inequalities will always exist in some form or another. You can't eliminate every one of them. And if you did, baseball would not be fun.

 

The present system is not perfect, but it at least offers incentives for the league to move ahead. Without the Yankees and Red Sox, there'd be no Angels and Artie Moreno or free-spending Tigers or White Sox. There'd be no Billy Beane exploiting market inefficiences, and may be no Admin Beinfest. There'd be fewer new stadiums from which to watch from and hang advertising banners all over. Do the same problems exist for teams like the Marlins? Yes. But guess what, they get 1/30th of the revenue when a Vlad jersey is bought or when a new TV or sponsoring deal is signed. And the league enhances its brand.

 

 

One change I'd like to see revamping revenue sharing. As TSwift alludes to in his condemnation of the Marlins, revenue sharing may not be used appropriately. Sure, there's nothing wrong with what the Marlins, D'Rays and other teams are doing. Net revenue sharing transfers can be used to increase payroll as well as improve the team's ability to produce better or healthier players. As long as it can be justified to, or promise to, improve talent, it's acceptable. Only the Pirates' attempt to use the money to pay down debt has been found unacceptable. But when team's replaces a All-Star player with a rookie, it sucks for fans, the team and the league. Teams do it because the All-Star does not produce as much revenue as he's costing the team in salary and reduced revenue sharing transfers. And if you're in 4th or 5th place, what's the point. If you're in Dolphins Stadium, what's the point? It would take a large investment (4-5 All-Stars) in actual on-field MLB talent to change anything, and it's not guaranteed. Revenue sharing needs to be reformed. It needs to be linked to positive habits. Instead of teams receiving it in order of their revenues, they should in order of their profits. Less profitable teams are those that, like the Marlins, are making an effort, but the typical monetary incentives (due to stadium issues, fan base, market size, etc.) do not exist for them to realize the profits of a more significant investment. However, a similar problem to salary floors/ceilings would occur. Teams would have the incentive to focus on short-term plans, to avoid penalties. There would need to be protections (such as the present one for stadium construction that the Yankees are using) to allow teams to invest in long-term plans.

cap and floor and fix the draft

I'd like to see a cap and floor implemented. If I had the choice of only implementing one, it would be floor.

Not in favor of a cap or a floor. Also not a big fan of revenue sharing, especially since teams aren't forced to spend (like we see on a daily basis).

 

Then again, there's never a guarantee that the floor/forced spending equates into good spending. Hence, the problem with the mandate.

NO and No....

Revenue sharing should do it.

 

60/40 on tickets and tv deals should do it.

Since we're relating this to the Marlins, and Marlins fans, I'd like to give you something to ponder. The Marlins have $0 in future payroll obligations to current roster players. The Marlins have about $6 million in prorated signing bonuses for draft picks and Delgado/Leiter et al payments for 2008. The Marlins get around $42 million in revenue sharing money annually.

 

That's what's got to end. I don't think a salary floor accomplishes this because it punishes fiscally responsible teams (albeit, realistically, 3 teams that would be affected). There needs to be a "if you get it you have to spend it" situation. Plus, it forces teams to negotiate arbitration buyouts with their players, and as MarlinsLou has made overly evident, it's a process that only stands to benefit the organization and is a concession young non-arbitration eligible players are all to happy to oblige.

 

I'd love to see an NFL system where all teams share non-luxury seat sales in a giant pot meaning essentially all teams are on the same fiscal playing field, but it won't happen, and it doesn't really need to happen.

 

As ironic as it sounds, baseball just needs to find a way to put less money into the pockets of small market owners in the name of the greater good.

 

And in terms of pure competitiveness, there needs to be a "capped" draft. There's no good reason the defending AL champ should get a player like Rick Porcello the year following.

I totally agree Swift. A salary floor will only further escalate outrageous player salaries, by forcing teams to spend money when they may not need to. A cap will shatter all hopes of keeping a team together for an extended period of time. The only answer is to modify the rules of revenue sharing, forcing teams to use the money constructively.

 

As for the draft, there should be a cap on signing bonuses. Unproven players shouldn't be able to hold teams hostage with the threat of their enormous signing bonuses. The system as it currently is, potentially robs the value from having a high draft pick.