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.

 

I'm reluctant to say a floor will escalate salary since it would, realistically, have to be set at a figure that'd be nearly impossible (yes I get the irony) to be below with the full intent of being competitive during that season. If you go by last year's numbers, only 5 teams (Florida, Colorado, KC, Tampa and Pittsburgh) came in below the $50 million threshold, and only 2 (Tampa and Florida) came in below the $40 million threshold. Source

 

Conceivably (since I don't think we'll see a 2006 Marlins team ever again since that team almost directly preceded the new overvaluation of organizational prospects) all it does is turn non-guaranteed spring training deals into guaranteed non-roster payouts. There wouldn't be a drastic player contract inflation. If anything, the system I advocate may have the reverse effect as players and teams both need to negotiate pre-arbitration contracts. That turns 6th year players like Cabrera who could earn $18 million into players who make $12 million.

 

I don't think the owners (as a group) would oppose it since you know guys like Steinbrenner and Moreno are steamed seeing their revenue sharing check get pocketed by the Lorias of the league. The MLBPA wouldn't oppose it because it means more guaranteed money for players on, shall we say volatile, teams. And since we're talking about a (relative) meager commitment in guaranteed contracts to be in compliance, no franchise is handcuffed.

I would argue that forcing teams to keep their payroll at a minimum level would result in a commensurate increase in average payroll across the board. Teams that have the money will want to remain in their competitive positions (ie The Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Angels, etc) so they will increase their own payrolls to lure free agents away from the small market teams. The result of a "salary floor" is nothing more than expedited inflation. The only remedy would be a salary cap to accompany the salary floor because it would prevent the wealthier teams from snatching free agents. I'm strongly against a cap, so I'd rather leave payrolls largely unregulated.

I would argue that forcing teams to keep their payroll at a minimum level would result in a commensurate increase in average payroll across the board. Teams that have the money will want to remain in their competitive positions (ie The Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Angels, etc) so they will increase their own payrolls to lure free agents away from the small market teams. The result of a "salary floor" is nothing more than expedited inflation. The only remedy would be a salary cap to accompany the salary floor because it would prevent the wealthier teams from snatching free agents. I'm strongly against a cap, so I'd rather leave payrolls largely unregulated.

 

I'd completely agree with that assessment if the salary floor were put at, oh, $80 million, but that's an unrealistic number. A $50 million floor, or a $40 million floor (more likely) affects 'no one.' Much like the luxury cap was targeted only at the Yankees, the floor, by and large, wouldn't put a lot of teams in non-compliance off the bat.

 

Now, if you want to argue that a floor would be set higher, then you won't have any disagreement from me.

 

And, for the record, if I were forced to chose one or the other, I'd be more in favor of a cap than a floor, even if it conflicts with my personal economic beliefs, I feel the unique nature of sports teams is the one place where interference with wage earning is relevant and mildly acceptable.

Swifty hit the nail on the head here. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I have to disagree with Swifty here. A number that's going to mean anything is going to cause a rapid increase in salary inflation. A number that isn't going to cause that inflation will be too low anyways, so it won't be worth having, and will be in place to set a nasty precedent for raising and disastrous consequences later on.

 

If revenue sharing is here to stay, and it unfortunately looks like it is, why don't we force the teams to spend it by throwing the money into accounts separately divided for each team receiving the funds, and then have those accounts be the ones that pay the players' salaries? Can't buy artwork that way.