MLB Salary Cap..

Yup. MLB needs an even playing field.

Oh and yeah the Pirates owners stink. They need a minimum cap as well as a max.

The salary cap has nothing to do with why the Pirates are horrible. It is because of the Nutting family. They haven't sunk a penny into the team since purchasing it. Revenue sharing pays for the team, every cent that they make goes right into their pockets.

The Nutting family has money, they just bought a $200 million ski resort two years ago, they don't give a care about the Pirates. To them the Pirates are a bankroll, and that is sad.

I'm all for a cap, but if you think that is why the Pirates are awful, look deeper.

Check out Forbes' annual report entitled "The Business of Baseball". Here's a link to the 2007 report (based upon 2006 numbers). Guess which team had the third highest operating income? Yep, it's the Pirates.Oleg_Huzwog

It's true. The Nuttings just don't spend or care enough about the Pirates. If they did half of what Ted Rogers helped the Blue Jays when he bought the team, maybe the Pirates would have gotten a more...talented lineup. Right now, Jason Bay is where it cuts off. One man can only do so much. And a salary cap? I don't know...it'll take the fun out of watching the Yankees and BoSox beat each other up.

They need a floor and a cap.

Even big-spenders like the Yankees and Red Sox should get behind this movement because the MLB's revenue sharing system is putting money from their pockets into the bank accounts of deadbeat owners like Bob Nutting (Pirates).

They need a floor and a cap.

Even big-spenders like the Yankees and Red Sox should get behind this movement because the MLB's revenue sharing system is putting money from their pockets into the bank accounts of deadbeat owners like Bob Nutting (Pirates).

KaptainKorn

Like I said. It doesnt matter what the Teams and Fans want. Players Union holds the Power. They wont take a pay cut.

The smaller teams just simply don't have enough money to spend on big name players as bigger clubs.CJL182

Not true.

[QUOTE="CJL182"]The smaller teams just simply don't have enough money to spend on big name players as bigger clubs.Oleg_Huzwog

Not true.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="CJL182"]The smaller teams just simply don't have enough money to spend on big name players as bigger clubs.blackngold29

Not true.

Dude, the Pirates organization's owners have the money to spend. The Nutting family refuses to spend money on the team because they aren't interested in making the team better. The Nutting family is in it for money making purposes alone.

And your logic doesn't make sense. No people = no money? That's what revenue sharing was created to prevent. How can you say that when teams like the Marlins have won two World Series in the past decade? They have some of the worst attendance in the MLB.

The truth is that money will entice good players from teams to play somewhere else. It is whether or not that talent is worth the money or if the owners want to spend the money. The Pirates have had a recent history of picking up older, decent named players with big contracts and then passing the blame on to them, Opperation Shutdown anyone?

If the Pirates had the money they would spend it.blackngold29

If you had read the Forbes report I linked in a previous post, you would see that they do indeed have the money.

I think a salary cap would cripple the sport for the next decade and probably lose most of the support from current fans.

Baseball likes the superteams and they also love the farm system. With a salary cap you equalize everything BUT you also cancel out the possibility of superteams and you weaken the farm system because more and more players will need to play.

No longer would a team be able to cultivate their farm systems over years to weed out the good and bad players. Players showing slight glimmers of flash would be brought up to try to fill holes and many would fail (overall if not brought on by injury) Also players that need the extra time would never get it because new players would be coming in all the time. There would be a whole shift to the idea behind the farm system.

I'd agree with teams being forced to spend a minimum but a salary cap would be too damaging.

No longer would a team be able to cultivate their farm systems over years to weed out the good and bad players. Players showing slight glimmers of flash would be brought up to try to fill holes and many would fail (overall if not brought on by injury) Also players that need the extra time would never get it because new players would be coming in all the time. There would be a whole shift to the idea behind the farm system.

Jaysonguy

How would a cap cause that?

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

No longer would a team be able to cultivate their farm systems over years to weed out the good and bad players. Players showing slight glimmers of flash would be brought up to try to fill holes and many would fail (overall if not brought on by injury) Also players that need the extra time would never get it because new players would be coming in all the time. There would be a whole shift to the idea behind the farm system.

duxup

How would a cap cause that?

Because teams wont sit on their plays anymore.

Right now it works out that big teams work their farm system for two reasons

1. Get good players

2. Get players that look to have a good upside so they can trade for superstars

Small teams only do it to find good players

Now if you take out the "trading for a superstar" aspect of the farm system you're only trying to find good players. A salary cap means that the talent is diluted through the league and there's going to be more of a urge to get players into the majors to try to recoup that loss.

That means that no longer can a team like the Yankees or Red Sox look at a high schooler to draft that might take 3 or 4 years because in the non salary cap era they'd just trade for another player to fill the void, now it would have to be done with the draft. That means you'd have to find a player closer to being ready for top tier baseball. That also means that once a player shows that he's ready he'll be sent up rather then the way it is now where a player needs to show for a certain amount of time that he's ready not only talent wise but stress on the body wise.

Even these days you see young players get injuries that either slows their careers or destroys it entirely (mostly seen in pitchers) with the teams getting young players to top tier faster the chance of injuries increase.

Also you have to make a new statistic of players that were brought up too fast and have to be demoted. Players for the most part don't handle that well and it would be happening on a greater scale. Now there is a chance that because it was happening more often the negative stigma attached to it would decrease but at the same time there would still be those players that get rushed and never are able to reach their full potential.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

No longer would a team be able to cultivate their farm systems over years to weed out the good and bad players. Players showing slight glimmers of flash would be brought up to try to fill holes and many would fail (overall if not brought on by injury) Also players that need the extra time would never get it because new players would be coming in all the time. There would be a whole shift to the idea behind the farm system.

Jaysonguy

How would a cap cause that?

Because teams wont sit on their plays anymore.

Right now it works out that big teams work their farm system for two reasons

1. Get good players

2. Get players that look to have a good upside so they can trade for superstars

Small teams only do it to find good players

Now if you take out the "trading for a superstar" aspect of the farm system you're only trying to find good players. A salary cap means that the talent is diluted through the league and there's going to be more of a urge to get players into the majors to try to recoup that loss.

That means that no longer can a team like the Yankees or Red Sox look at a high schooler to draft that might take 3 or 4 years because in the non salary cap era they'd just trade for another player to fill the void, now it would have to be done with the draft. That means you'd have to find a player closer to being ready for top tier baseball. That also means that once a player shows that he's ready he'll be sent up rather then the way it is now where a player needs to show for a certain amount of time that he's ready not only talent wise but stress on the body wise.

Even these days you see young players get injuries that either slows their careers or destroys it entirely (mostly seen in pitchers) with the teams getting young players to top tier faster the chance of injuries increase.

Also you have to make a new statistic of players that were brought up too fast and have to be demoted. Players for the most part don't handle that well and it would be happening on a greater scale. Now there is a chance that because it was happening more often the negative stigma attached to it would decrease but at the same time there would still be those players that get rushed and never are able to reach their full potential.

I read that three times and I still don't see how a salary cap means teams are more likely to bring players up too quickly.

You make it sound like only the consistently successful teams keep players in the farm system for as long as they should be there and because they're not going to dominate anymore the farm systems will all empty into the majors. Plenty of teams are careful about bringing up young players and when they don't work out they often go to other team's farm system anyhow.

[QUOTE="CJL182"]The smaller teams just simply don't have enough money to spend on big name players as bigger clubs.Oleg_Huzwog

Not true.

So, let's say the Brewers traded for Santana and payed him. Do you think they'd have money to spend on their other players, too?

So, let's say the Brewers traded for Santana and payed him. Do you think they'd have money to spend on their other players, too? gasmaskman

According to the Forbes report, the Brewers had a $21 million surplus for the 2006 season. I checked reports from the previous years 2005 report (2004 season), 2006 report (2005 season), and it turns out the Brewers consistently rake in $20-25 million. So yeah, they could bring in someone like Santana and still break even. All they need is an owner who places winning ahead of profits.

[QUOTE="gasmaskman"]So, let's say the Brewers traded for Santana and payed him. Do you think they'd have money to spend on their other players, too? Oleg_Huzwog

According to the Forbes report, the Brewers had a $21 million surplus for the 2006 season. I checked reports from the previous years, and it turns out the Brewers consistently rake in $20-25 million. So yeah, they could bring in someone like Santana and still break even. All they need is an owner who places winning ahead of profits.

But almost all of their young players aren't into free agency yet, and a few aren't even in arbitration.

But almost all of their young players aren't into free agency yet, and a few aren't even in arbitration.

gasmaskman

All the more reason to spend now, instead of later. They've got allstar talent in Weeks, Braun, Fielder, and Gwynn secured at bargain prices, they play in baseball's weakest division, and they've got cash to spend. They should've been major players this last offseason to gear up for a postseason run.

I think a better revenue sharing system and forcing owners to actually spend the money they receive (hi, Jeffrey Loria!) would be better than a salary cap. shaunmc

Jeffrey loria will spend now that the marlins will get a new stadium