 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Baseball Salary Cap
| Poll: Baseball Salary Cap | |
|---|---|
| Yes | 10 |
| No | 5 |
theKnightofNi
If yes, post what that salary cap would be.
Baseball Salary Cap
January 12, 2005 at 12:40AM View BBCode
Should baseball implement a salary cap, so that teams like the Yankees can't spend wildely, or keep the system as it is?If yes, post what that salary cap would be.
abarkov
would have to be negotiated between the owners and MLBPA.
January 12, 2005 at 12:42AM View BBCode
Yes they should have a salary cap, just to maintain some balance. As to the amount, that would probably be some percentage of total revenue andwould have to be negotiated between the owners and MLBPA.
theKnightofNi
January 12, 2005 at 12:46AM View BBCode
I agree, but you will get an argument the other way that teams like the Yankees will then be put at a disavantage, and star players won't be happy because they won't get paid as much as they did before. Still, it would certaintly install more parity and give small market teams a better chance of contending on a yearly basis
Smocko
January 12, 2005 at 12:46AM View BBCode
No. If billionare owners don't want to spend money on their teams maybe they should sell them.
sfgiants4
January 12, 2005 at 12:51AM View BBCode
yes definetly the should set the cap at the yankees payroll this year like around 210million, then lower the cap about 10 or 25 million a year till it gets to be around 125million that were it should be at, but we should give the teams over that mark a few years to adjust to it.
theKnightofNi
January 12, 2005 at 12:54AM View BBCode
True. That's a good way to handle it, but I doubt Major League Baseball has the time nor the motivation to get this done. Would their have to be an owner's vote or something?
sfgiants4
January 12, 2005 at 12:55AM View BBCode
oh ya every manager would probably have to agree to this and as long as george steinbrenner is alive he wont agree to a slary cap, so a salry cap won't be implemented anytime soon
abarkov
playoffs when the current collective bargaining agreement expires.
January 12, 2005 at 12:56AM View BBCode
Yeah, it would have to be approved by the owners and negotiated with theplayoffs when the current collective bargaining agreement expires.
hobos
January 12, 2005 at 01:01AM View BBCode
I believe that when the owners met, 29 of them agreed that a salary cap was for the best. Guess who didn't? Getting it through the player's union could be hard...
sfgiants4
January 12, 2005 at 01:03AM View BBCode
ya too many obstacles, but it would be a great for baseball
ME
Having a cap would not force the worthless teams to spend more. There would still be lots of cheap-ass owners.
January 12, 2005 at 01:30AM View BBCode
Players Union would never agree.Having a cap would not force the worthless teams to spend more. There would still be lots of cheap-ass owners.
Moonbat767
January 12, 2005 at 02:24AM View BBCode
Its very hard for teams like Oakland and Pittsburgh to compete with bigger market teams like the Yankees.
ME
January 12, 2005 at 02:40AM View BBCode
Wrong. Almost any team can compete if they make the right moves, no matter the payroll. Look at Oakland and Minnesota. The "we can't compete with big market teams" argument is used by small market owners who are cheap and make a lot of dumb moves to try to make it sound like they have no chance.
sfgiants4
January 12, 2005 at 08:46PM View BBCode
Oakland can be "competitive" with big market teams like the yanks, but if billy bean had that kind of payroll he'd have the best team in the league. He would be able to keep players such as Tejada, Hudson, Mulder, Foulke, and others
FuriousGiorge
January 12, 2005 at 08:50PM View BBCode
Others = Giambi? Yeah, that would have been a great signing. Sometimes having a smaller budget works to your advantage, because you don't overspend for players who are approaching the downside of their career and will block developing players due to their "you must play me" bloated contracts.
sfgiants4
January 12, 2005 at 08:54PM View BBCode
I'd take one giambi type player for the rest of that bunch.
FuriousGiorge
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.
I'll take the cross.
January 12, 2005 at 08:58PM View BBCode
Why? So you can have another overpaid bunch of vets with bloated contracts?Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.
I'll take the cross.
whiskybear
Mike Ilitch?
January 12, 2005 at 09:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by hobos
I believe that when the owners met, 29 of them agreed that a salary cap was for the best. Guess who didn't?
Mike Ilitch?
sfgiants4
January 12, 2005 at 09:06PM View BBCode
I'm happy with the way the A's rosters circulates right now, i was just imagining how good they would be if they kept some of those good players. I would rather every team acted like the A's ,then spend big bucks like the yanks.
whiskybear
Me too. Because there's no better style of baseball to watch than the "two walks and a home run trot" brand. It's inspiring, really.
January 12, 2005 at 09:11PM View BBCode
Originally posted by sfgiants4
I'm happy with the way the A's rosters circulates right now, i was just imagining how good they would be if they kept some of those good players. I would rather every team acted like the A's ,then spend big bucks like the yanks.
Me too. Because there's no better style of baseball to watch than the "two walks and a home run trot" brand. It's inspiring, really.
wtaylor
What the Yankees are doing, (and I'm a Yankee fan) is legal but not expedient for the game of baseball. George has every right to put his profits into his business and probably should, but I wish it was in player development so that we could watch the next Jeter, or Rivera here in Columbus.
A hard cap of around $80,000,000 would work.
Baseball Salary Cap
January 12, 2005 at 09:26PM View BBCode
Absolutely they need a cap!What the Yankees are doing, (and I'm a Yankee fan) is legal but not expedient for the game of baseball. George has every right to put his profits into his business and probably should, but I wish it was in player development so that we could watch the next Jeter, or Rivera here in Columbus.
A hard cap of around $80,000,000 would work.
Benne
I agree. I would propose the idea of a minimum cap to make teams pay more to keep their core players to establish a competitive team. Steinbrenner's overspending is a big overstated IMO, they haven't won a WS in 4 years. What the problem is is the cheap-ass owners that alienate their fans by dumping players to save a little $. Look what happened to the 49ers.
January 12, 2005 at 10:04PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ME
Wrong. Almost any team can compete if they make the right moves, no matter the payroll. Look at Oakland and Minnesota. The "we can't compete with big market teams" argument is used by small market owners who are cheap and make a lot of dumb moves to try to make it sound like they have no chance.
I agree. I would propose the idea of a minimum cap to make teams pay more to keep their core players to establish a competitive team. Steinbrenner's overspending is a big overstated IMO, they haven't won a WS in 4 years. What the problem is is the cheap-ass owners that alienate their fans by dumping players to save a little $. Look what happened to the 49ers.
INDIANSFORLIFE
January 12, 2005 at 10:23PM View BBCode
I voted yes. Just copy word for word what the NFL does. Its excellent.
DeVeau31
Give the owners the respect they deserve for putting down their life savings into buying a team and trying to build it into superstardom, while keeping all the overpaid a-holes happy. It's not exactly a great job to have. And what do the players have to do? They work hard to become the best player possible, put in a lot of time, then they get there and play well and are offered a 6 million dollar deal and bitch and complain and cry that they deserve 10??? Cmon.
A cap of 80-100 million is perfect. This multi-tiered revenue sharing system doesn't work. If an owner wants to spend his ass off, he will, plain and simple. He doesn't care about the repercussions, and why should he? If he's willing to spend 150 million, what's another 30?
January 13, 2005 at 02:26PM View BBCode
All sports should have a salary cap. Why do you think hockey is dead right now? The players union in baseball has way too much power and that needs to change as well. They think they run the league. If you're in the player's union, good for you, you have a safe, stable job making millions of dollars. Guess what? THE OWNERS PONY UP FOR YOUR ASSES!!!Give the owners the respect they deserve for putting down their life savings into buying a team and trying to build it into superstardom, while keeping all the overpaid a-holes happy. It's not exactly a great job to have. And what do the players have to do? They work hard to become the best player possible, put in a lot of time, then they get there and play well and are offered a 6 million dollar deal and bitch and complain and cry that they deserve 10??? Cmon.
A cap of 80-100 million is perfect. This multi-tiered revenue sharing system doesn't work. If an owner wants to spend his ass off, he will, plain and simple. He doesn't care about the repercussions, and why should he? If he's willing to spend 150 million, what's another 30?
Pages: 1 2