Baseball and the Salary Cap

1-liner, Baseball TheBigLead December 29th. 2008, 4:00pm

A Salary Cap and Baseball: “Those who think baseball needs a salary cap aren’t paying attention. There have been seven different champions in the last eight seasons and since 2001, 23 teams have appeared in the playoffs at least once.” A popular refrain from the anti-cap crowd. It is a neat stat. So is the fact that the highest-spending team (Yankees), missed the postseason last year, and hasn’t won a World Series in seemingly forever. Still not addressed: Some teams spend over $150 million to field a team, and many others spend just $50 million to field a team. In the words of Ron Burgandy: “It’s science.” (LoHud)

14 Responses to “Baseball and the Salary Cap”

1
spencer096 Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:05 PM
im against a salary cap.
a salary floor, however? do it…do it now…what are you waiting for?
2
clown Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Some teams spend over $150 million to field a team, and many others spend just $50 million to field a team. In the words of Ron Burgandy: â€œIt’s science.€
Some teams put their revenue in their payroll, and some teams put it in their pockets. I don’t understand your science.
3
Pittsburgh Sports and Mini Ponies Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Some teams put their revenue in their payroll, and the Pirates put it in their pockets. I don’t understand your science.
No need to hint
4
spencer096 Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:28 PM
PSAMP…don’t forget the marlins.
5
Big Nuts Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Give us a floor, then we’ll talk to you b*tches about a salary cap!
– Hank Steinbrenner at Happy Hour
6
molemaninthemorning Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Noone bitches when it’s Boston of Chicago spending money, cause they’re JUST SO DARN PLUCKY!
7
molemaninthemorning Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:46 PM
or*
damnit
8
Maxwell Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:50 PM
So lets say they do put in a cap. Where do you suppose all those extra millions the Yanks have are going to go to? Nobody ever has an answer for this. I am pretty sure that those who are spending now will find a new (and probably more effective way)of using thier capital to their advantage.
9
sponge-worthy Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:08 PM
someone told me they heard Olney on espn radio in NY that people are starting to poke around the Marlins owner who, apparently, is pocketing revenue sharing money instead of putting the best team on the field.
10
Bruce Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:46 PM
@sponge-worthy- there were some of the same rumblings a few years back concerning the Royals’ owner. Not sure if anything ever came of it.
11
cracker jack Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Well when you make more money in revenue sharing than what you spend on your team, it’s pretty obvious you’re not putting the best team on the field. No need for further poking around.
12
Makblunt Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:18 PM
I agree with Cracker. Seems like an open and shut case.
13
sponge-worthy Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Perhaps but what about the idea that the reason they get revenue sharing money is so they can field a competitive team, not for the owners to “line their pockets”
14
SpicyTunaRoll Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 8:29 AM
A cap only works with true revenue sharing – a la the NFL. The problem is that the revenue stream in MLB is too diversified in the local markets as opposed to the national money from the networks in the NFL. I don’t know what the solution is but until some of the smaller market teams actually prove to be financially unstable you won’t see any changes.