MLB Question of the Week V1

[Phil The Thrill]

Express your opinion.

 

[Oiler35]

No. Where would they put it? Lower than the Yankees, so they have to drop some players? At the Yankees current, so teams like Tampa could sign a tonne of players?

 

[RipCity32]

I said no.
I mean it is shitty that the Yankees control baseball cause they have the most cash.
But at the same time, I have no desire to see a Pirates vs. Orioles World Series.
I'd much rather see the big dogs duke it out. The same reason I didn't watch the World Series this year. Texas and San Fransisco don't really appeal to the MLB fans. This World Series had an all time low TV rankings.

Put the Yankees and Phillies in there, and you get a lot more interest.

 

[Phil The Thrill]

No. Where would they put it? Lower than the Yankees, so they have to drop some players? At the Yankees current, so teams like Tampa could sign a tonne of players?

Obviously they won't put it up to what ever amount the Yankees spend, as for the Yankees, too bad, should have thought twice about those contracts.

 

[Phil The Thrill]

I said no.
I mean it is <Censored>ty that the Yankees control baseball cause they have the most cash.
But at the same time, I have no desire to see a Pirates vs. Orioles World Series.
I'd much rather see the big dogs duke it out. The same reason I didn't watch the World Series this year. Texas and San Fransisco don't really appeal to the MLB fans. This World Series had an all time low TV rankings.

Put the Yankees and Phillies in there, and you get a lot more interest.

Yeah thats true, even if the Yankees are spending too much and controlling baseball. No one wants to see a Pirates/Orioles World Series, it would just be bad for baseball.

 

[RipCity32]

Yeah, but I could clearly see the argument for the other side of it.
Tigers have a big market, so I lean a bit more towards no salary cap.

 

[Phil The Thrill]

Oh, and SG the Rays can compete as they are, they don't need to spend the money the Yankees do.

 

[RipCity32]

Problem is they lose their superstars, ala Carl Crawford this year.

 

[Phil The Thrill]

As well as Soriano and Pena which sucks a lot.

TBH, I am on the fence on this one.

 

[bestkeptsecret13]

No. I would say yes if the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs (LOL) won the World Series every year, but just because you have a huge payroll doesn't guarantee you a spot in the World Series.

 

[Giantmetfan07]

I just went with the third one because... the MLB does have a salary cap, people just don't realize it.

There are two types of Salary Caps: Hard Cap and Soft Cap. The MLB has a Soft-Cap. The hard cap in other sports like the NFL pretty much is -- you can't cross the line. With the MLB and it's soft cap it's "You can cross the line, but if you do, you gotta cough up the dough."

There is a soft salary cap, which forces teams over that cap to pay luxury tax. Very few teams pay it, I think it's only the Mets, Yankees, and Red Sox, although there may be two or more teams over that limit as well.

I don't think there needs to be a hard-cap because teams that are benifited from the luxury tax don't do anything with the money. The Florida Marlins are one of the teams that gets $$ from the luxury tax but every year they cut more and more salary, and get rid of guys who are ending arbitration and are ready to receive multi-millon dollar deals. So no, we don't need a hard-cap, but we already have a salary cap -- it's just a soft-cap, not a hard-cap.

 

[playmaker7]

I say yes. Thats just how I feel about it because some of these contracts are ridic as fuckkkkk. In addition, it would level the playing field.

But I don't think it'll happen anytime soon if it ever does. Just too hard to implement it now

 

[Giantmetfan07]

How is the playing field level if teams like the Marlins don't utilize the money they are given through Luxury Tax to improve their roster? Every year they are tight on their budget, but are being given money practically.

I'm sorry if I sound angry, maybe it's the beer I'm drinking, but it is a stupid reason.

 

[playmaker7]

How is the playing field level if teams like the Marlins don't utilize the money they are given through Luxury Tax to improve their roster? Every year they are tight on their budget, but are being given money practically.

I'm sorry if I sound angry, maybe it's the beer I'm drinking, but it is a stupid reason.

If there was a hard cap, you wouldn't see rosters like the Yankees have...which would easily make things more fair...

No one would have players making more than teams

 

[elcheato]

The only answer to this is yes.

 

[Giantmetfan07]

If there was a hard cap, you wouldn't see rosters like the Yankees have...which would easily make things more fair...

No one would have players making more than teams

but teams can afford to pay players more, like the Marlins -- they just don't use that money.

The Luxury Tax imposed by the Soft-Cap gives money to those teams that are less fortunate so they can compete -- so they can afford to pay the players more.

 

[playmaker7]

but teams can afford to pay players more, like the Marlins -- they just don't use that money.

The Luxury Tax imposed by the Soft-Cap gives money to those teams that are less fortunate so they can compete -- so they can afford to pay the players more.

I don't see how you can argue against a hard cap though. Wow, theres a soft cap already...oh well. A hard cap would only make things more competitive and less one sided...

 

[Giantmetfan07]

My point is that less-fortunate teams don't already take advantage of the soft-cap and the luxury tax. So why knock down the team that bring fans into the seats, and pay $150M? I know it sounds weird, but why knock the playing field down if these other teams don't want to spend more money, money that is being handed to them.

Im not saying a hard cap is a bad idea. I think in the future it is a good idea -- but I don't see the need when smaller teams don't utilize the cash given to them. Its hard to explain..

When they start taking that extra money, put it into signing players and TRYING to compete, then yeah go ahead and institute a hard cap if those teams still struggle to compete.

 

[A.E]

People act like if they limit how much money the Yankees can spend on players, then suddenly teams like the Marlins, Brewers, Indians, etc, wouldn't suck 4 years out of 5. Its a matter of keeping these small market teams afloat and if you can't grasp that concept, go read what the owner of the Rays has to say about a salary cap. This man acknowledges that luxury taxes and team network television deals are whats actually keeping a lot of these smaller market teams in business. I mean c'mon...nobody f*cking buying tickets in Pittsburgh and those stands in Tampa are completely empty all season long...regardless of wins. For just as many CC Sabathia's, the Yankees have overpaid for Kevin Brown's. It's not like they're winning the World Series every season and if you look at who's playing in the fall classic these days, they aren't teams with the highest of MLB payrolls.

Get it out of you're heads (if you have it in there) that instituting a salary cap is going to give the Pittsburgh Pirates and Kansas City Royals a chance to sign better players, pack their stands, and make the post-season. These franchises are still going to be living hand to mouth, not enough fans will give enough of a sh*t to buy tickets, sponsors won't come running with checkbooks open, and ownership will still be cheap as hell.

All we're doing here is trying to penalize the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox for wanting to put the best quality product possible in front of their fans. I mean we do pack our stadiums and we watch all our games (the overwhelming majority of us)...so it's only fair.

 

[Rios15]

The only reason you get more fans is because you have more money to win. The MLB should have a salary cap, but at this time, it would be difficult to implement one in.