Sports Daily: Yanks land Tanaka, Revisiting the Idea of a Salary Cap

[Steven78]

No salary cap. More revenue sharing. Comparing MLB to NFL is the ultimate apples to oranges comparison. Besides being pro sports leagues they are setup completely different.

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

To me, Giambi is the only one of those that fits the profile you first suggested (small or mid market team develops young star, only to lose him to Yankee megabucks). Clemens was 36. The Rangers stupidly overbid for A-Rod in the first place and received Soriano in the deal. The Tigers received decent value for Granderson in Austin Jackson. Texas received tremendous value for Teixeira (the Yankees signed him off the Angels, who aren't exactly poor). The Indians haven't received much so far for Sabathia (Brantley?), but the Brewers got a playoff appearance out of him. Personally, I don't mind the Yankees appearing in the playoffs most of the time (unless they consistently win titles) for the same reason I don't mind seeing the Patriots around. Every sport needs a villain, and nothing's more satisfying than watching the Yanks or Pats get booted from the postseason.

Fair enough. Although I don't think it occurred to me to factor in whether a team got value back or not after losing a star player; that may be more or less relevant depending on the circumstances. I wouldn't argue that the Tigers definitely came out on top, after all was said and done, from the Yanks/Tigers/D'backs trade that netted us Jackson and Scherzer. I do take exception w/ the Yanks and Patriots being around to have a villain every year though....if neither of those teams made the playoffs for the next 50 years, I'd be just fine with that.

Quote: Originally Posted by dickey1331

Like others have said I don't think baseball needs a salary cap. Its not the Yankees fault that Houston won't spend any money.

Quote: Originally Posted by 24

The best thing about Baseball is the fact there is no salary cap. The owners choose what they want to do with their money. George (And Now Hal) always wanted the Yanks to be in contention for a world series. Because of that he Spent a huge amount of money on free agents.

I agree that baseball - in fact, NO sport - "needs" a salary cap. It's an artificial restriction placed on teams by the teams themselves for what some view as the health of the game overall. As I mentioned prior, it's pretty much the purest expression of capitalism in sports to have an uncapped market, so in that sense it's a virtue. Of course nothing is stopping an owner from spending his own money out of his pocket to sign guys, but that's a bit artificial since it's not like the Steinbrenners are paying the likes of A-Rod out of their own personal bank accounts. The Yankees have a current valuation of $2.3 Billion, with annual revenues of $471 million, whereas a team like the Kansas City Royals have a valuation of $457 million, with annual revenues of about $160 million. Signing a guy like A-Rod for $30-mil a year + incentives isn't really a viable option for a team like KC. I'm not saying that's good or bad - I'm putting no value judgement on that statement whatsoever, vis-a-vis the virtues of a hard cap - but it's relevant only in the sense that the argument of "anyone can sign anyone they want" is not totally true, in a practical sense.

Look, the bottom line is that most baseball fans seem relatively happy with the way things are now and the franchise valuations keep going up, so everbody wins and nothing needs to be changed. I think there are valid arguments for a hard salary cap, but in the end, no one can reasonably argue that baseball "needs" one, in the sense that no sport "needs" one.

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by pietasterp

I do take exception w/ the Yanks and Patriots being around to have a villain every year though....if neither of those teams made the playoffs for the next 50 years, I'd be just fine with that.

That would also be acceptable.

Quote: Originally Posted by pietasterp

I think there are valid arguments for a hard salary cap, but in the end, no one can reasonably argue that baseball "needs" one, in the sense that no sport "needs" one.

I'd argue that baseball needs one less than football, basketball, or hockey.

If you can accumulate superior talent than your opposition in football or (especially) basketball, you're going to win almost all the time. In hockey, the disparity in payrolls and talent played a major role (IMO) in the ascendancy of boring hockey during the Dead Puck Era. It was certainly possible for less skilled, low payroll teams to prosper, but only through trapping and superior goaltending.

Baseball's many variables result in the best teams winning only 60% of the time and allow smart but poor teams to compete while still putting an entertaining product on the field. It wouldn't exactly hurt my feelings if MLB adopted a salary cap, but I think it's unnecessary at this time.

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

I'd argue that baseball needs one less than football, basketball, or hockey. If you can accumulate superior talent than your opposition in football or (especially) basketball, you're going to win almost all the time. In hockey, the disparity in payrolls and talent played a major role (IMO) in the ascendancy of boring hockey during the Dead Puck Era. It was certainly possible for less skilled, low payroll teams to prosper, but only through trapping and superior goaltending. Baseball's many variables result in the best teams winning only 60% of the time and allow smart but poor teams to compete while still putting an entertaining product on the field. It wouldn't exactly hurt my feelings if MLB adopted a salary cap, but I think it's unnecessary at this time.

I can't argue with anything you said there. All reasonable points. Discussion/internet conceded...

P.S. Edit: Just out of curiosity, how is the 60% figure derived? And what percentage of the time does the "best" (however you want to define that) team win in other sports, for comparison? I would still argue playoff appearances, not titles, are the relevant metric, but nevertheless I'd be interested in how baseball compares. I guess I could also look it up myself....

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by pietasterp

I can't argue with anything you said there. All reasonable points. Discussion/internet conceded... P.S. Edit: Just out of curiosity, how is the 60% figure derived? And what percentage of the time does the "best" (however you want to define that) team win in other sports, for comparison? I would still argue playoff appearances, not titles, are the relevant metric, but nevertheless I'd be interested in how baseball compares. I guess I could also look it up myself....

In a typical season, MLB's best team will win about 100 games. 100/162 = 61.7%.

There was a thread a year or so ago (can't remember where) that I came up with how often the best regular season teams in all sports won championships (I was arguing with Money99 about something). I'm not going to dig that up, but I can tell you that since MLB's wild card era began in 1995, only 4 teams who finished with the best record in the Majors went on to win the World Series.

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

In a typical season, MLB's best team will win about 100 games. 100/162 = 61.7%. There was a thread a year or so ago (can't remember where) that I came up with how often the best regular season teams in all sports won championships (I was arguing with Money99 about something). I'm not going to dig that up, but I can tell you that since MLB's wild card era began in 1995, only 4 teams who finished with the best record in the Majors went on to win the World Series.

Got it. Fair enough; I vaguely remember that thread I think, and anyway I'll take your word for it.

I still contend that post-season appearances, and not titles, is the better way to measure "success" (in relationship to whether money can buy "success"). Of course there are many ways to measure that, but my suspicion is that there's a direct line between payroll and the post-season in baseball, which is sort of at the crux of this discussion, as post-season appearances are akin to more "shots on goal" so to speak.

Last comment - I think the team with the best regular season record is an interesting way to designate a "best" team, since it's dependent on conference assignment, among other things (not to mention the winning percentage is heavily influenced by the fact that so many games are played in an MLB season), although there may or may not be a correlation there between best regular season record and payroll. I suspect there is.

[feztonio]

as a Mets fan (I'm assuming due to your Mets logo in your screen name) does the Yankees way make you more mad, or does the fact that your favorite team is also in New York and conceivably could be spending and earning in the same neighborhood as the Yankees, but the Wilpons insist on carrying themselves and the teams finances as if they were located in Austin TX or Gary IN or some other small / minor league market?

[Chip Douglass]

On the other end of the competitive balance spectrum, the Florida/Miami Marlins have been an ATM machine for their entire existence and have won 2 championships.

Baseball has plenty of parity.