Should the MLB enforce a salary cap?

The main reason I have for not wanting a salary cap in baseball is that the MLB already leans too much on the luck factor. I mean any given series, the Mariners can take 2 outta 3 from the Angels. Or the Twins can take 3 outta 4 from the Tigers. Despite the difference in payrolls, weaker teams still take down better teams. If there is a salary cap, then I feel every team will look too similar. It would be harder for there to be one dominant team. I know this isnt the greatest reason, but baseball isnt like Football or Basketball where one star caliber player can decide if a team is a playoff team or not. An Albert Pujols in the MLB has a much less of an impact on a team than a Kobe Bryant for the Lakers or a Drew Brees for the Saints. Pujols is just 1/9th of the batting order and 1/9th of the defense. Justin Verlander is just 1/5th of the starting rotation. He was an MVP last year and didn't play a role in about 130 of the Tigers games last year. For there to be clearly good baseball teams, there needs to be a side that is stacked. I feel this is the only way for there to be imbalance or the MLB might turn into the World Series of Poker. I'm an A's fan saying this. If there must be a cap, I think they should set it high. The A's probably won't even reach 100M ever for a single season payroll. If it becomes an even bigger issue, there should be a higher luxury tax enforced. But being a fan of a team that pays so little for its player is great when that team ends up winning. Its an indescribable feeling that only comes around so often. Even though the A's didnt win the world series, I think I got more joy from this season than a typical Yankee fan got from the 2009 World Series.

You are not able to reply this question when you don't fully grasp the fiscal realities that go into each physical games payroll. The NFL is effective and has a income cap on the grounds that the great majority of the league revenue comes from the national tv contracts. The entire teams cut up those contracts equally when you consider that the networks are the only ones who show video games. (i.E. No regional television contracts) The reason that groups just like the Yankees and the red Sox have a lot cash to spend is on account that of the rewarding local television deals that every has with cable businesses of their field. The Yankees obtain almost 500 million a 12 months in sales from the yes community. Groups just like the Royals or the Pirates, on the other hand, only make about one tenth of that sort of money. Definite the posh tax helps slightly bit, a little or no bit, but it's no the place near enough to make a small market group competitive 12 months in and yr out. Also, you may have those who declare "small market teams can compete with intelligent management". Genuine, but simplest to an extent. Groups just like the A's and the Twins find themselves competitive 12 months in and year out, by and large making the playoffs. But when used to be the final time they have been triumphant in the playoffs? Sensible management would aid you win 92 video games and sneak into the playoffs, however as soon as there you must have the colossal money superstars to get you excessive. An extra factor sure, many small market team homeowners are indepently rich from different business. I believe that the Twins owner is customarily the richest of anybody in baseball. But finally, baseball is and constantly, perpetually, normally has been a trade first for the reason that the formation of the countrywide and American leagues. These men bought rich due to the fact that of fine trade feel. That entails working an organization at a revenue. I am definite many will say, "If I was wealthy, i might spend my own cash to bring the fans a winner." Yeah, and i am definite that you'd have "heat dog Giv-away" night time and the entire beer at the stadium can be free. In other phrases, no you would not. So store the altruistic bull-sht. Steinbrenner spends the money on the Yankees that the Yankees generate. If that affords a 225 million greenback payroll, then so be it. The Pirates spend the money that the Pirates generate. If that's best a fifty five million dollar payroll, then so be it. You can't assume the Yankees to make 400 million in benefit from their television contract and simply hand it over to the opposite teams which might be looking to beat them. They generate four hundred million due to the fact that they win. They spend the money next yr, they make a further four hundred million. Does Wal-Mart share their earnings with ok-Mart and target. No, recover from it.

Yeah, it needs a salary cap. And a salary floor.

For my argument to work, it needs to be accepted that the playoffs are essentially a crapshoot. What I mean by this is that ANY team can win in the playoffs. As nba_gsw pointed out, series are often random in that a bad team can take a series. So for the playoffs, momentum plays a huge factor and anyone can win.

But to make the playoffs, a larger payroll makes a huge difference. You see, in the regular season, a bad team CAN take a series from a good team. But eventually, the Law of Statistics catches up and over a 162 game season, the records show that. While we often see different World Series champions because the randomness of the playoffs, we also often see the same teams at the top and at the bottom. No one can deny that the Yankee payroll has helped them make the playoffs nearly every single year in the past 20 years. The Red Sox and Yankees payrolls have allowed them to essentially control the division for the past few years. What the Rays and Orioles did required years and years of scouting and if it doesn't work out, they are screwed. It takes so much for a small-market team to achieve.

A large payroll helps so much in getting to the playoffs and it's unfair. Teams like Cleveland, San Diego, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City are consistently at the bottom of the division and are satisfied with making the playoffs once every decade because their payrolls are so low. A team should NOT be satisfied with that.

There is NOT a lot of parity in baseball. A salary cap AND salary floor needs to be put in place for baseball to be more fair.

Read this article, it makes a very convincing case:

http://www.azsnakepit.com/2009/12/11/1117794/why-b...

I don't think a salary cap is needed. We have seen 8 different world series winners in the last decade, a good mix compared to about any sport with a salary cap. In the long run, we see teams that overspend get caught up in bad contracts. The A-Rod's, the Vernon Wells contracts a team can't escape can hold a team to results inferior to a team that does not have an insane payroll and a lot of young talent like the Nats. I don't believe the lack of the salary cap is to blame for the Yankees historical dominance of baseball. eleven wins are from the thirties and fifties, a timezone that differs greatly with the way a team is run today.

the league tried to propose a salary cap in 1994, but the players went on a strike that ended up cancelling the world series, and starting the 1995 season late. they ended up losing a lot of fans because of that, and struggled to regain them. if you noticed within the last year or two, all four major north american sports leagues had their collective bargaining agreements expire, but baseball was the only one that didn't resort to a lockout. the reason their negotiations were so quick and easy was because they didn't want a repeat of the 1994 strike even though some owners may want a salary cap.

so to answer your question, if the mlb believes it is in the best interest of the league's long-term future to have a salary cap, then they should try to re-introduce the proposal. but convincing the players won't be easy, and the league will have to be prepared for any obstacle that is put in their way.

Yes Salary Cap

Yes More Video Replay for Everything except Balls and Strikes. Limited requests like football and Tennis.

Shorter Season 100 games

More Inter-league games.

Do nothing about DH

On behalf on the MLB teams, i think a salary cap would be appropriate. I mean how do the houston astros compete with the ny yankees? I think each team should have the same advantages as the next

No because the NBA, NFL, and NHL had fights over the salary cap and revenues, which lead to lockouts. The MLB needs to stay stable.

I heard that they basically are going to have a hard cap in a few years because that was part of the new CBA. I think starting in 2016 or something, the luxury tax is going to be so much that it wouldn't even be worth it for teams to pay it.

I'm going to have to say I don't see how it's necessary.

MLB has had 'more' parity than the other three sports that 'have' salary caps.