PDA

View Full Version : Some baseball owners call for salary cap


Bear
01-15-2009, 10:21 AM
AP
USA Today
1/15/09


PARADISE VALLEY, Ariz. (AP) — Some baseball owners say it may be time to reconsider a salary cap after the New York Yankees spent nearly a half-billion dollars on free agents during a recession that may cause some teams to retrench.

"I would ask, if it's such a bad idea, what sport doesn't have a salary cap other than us?" Milwaukee Brewers owner Mark Attanasio said Wednesday.

A salary cap isn't on the agenda of the major league owners meetings this week. But it could become an issue when the present collective bargaining agreement expires after the 2011 season — especially if the economy worsens.

"I think there's a lot of owners that would like to have that right now," Oakland owner Lew Wolff said. "I think the parity is what we're looking for, and the more ways you can get to parity the better. I think it's pretty good now, but I think it could be better.

"It's a very good question, because maybe this recession, depression, whatever we're in may be a change for a lot more years," Wolff said.

The bleak economy was on the owners' minds as they gathered at an exclusive mountainside resort to begin two days of meetings. Owners compared notes on ticket sales and sponsorships and other indicators of the economy's squeeze and were set to consider proposals Thursday to eliminate the possibility of rain-shortened postseason games and to change the method of determining sites of tiebreaker games to head-to-head record rather than coin flips.

Wolff said the Athletics' ticket sales are down about 10% from a year ago. The Brewers lost Mercedes-Benz as a sponsor but added a presenting sponsorship agreement with Potawatomi Bingo Casino — part of an expected double-digit percentage gain in sponsorship revenue.

The Chicago Cubs are for sale, but the economy hasn't cooled the ardor of the club's long-suffering fans. Chairman Crane Kenney said the waiting list for season tickets to Wrigley Field recently surged past 100,000. Kenney said the Cubs' recent playoff appearances have given fans hope that the team is poised to win its first World Series since 1908.

"I think our fans are starting to sense that the end (of the title drought) is coming, and they want to be there for the party," Kenney said. "We're in a real good spot. We don't take it for granted."

Some owners, especially those in low-revenue areas, say a cap would give smaller markets a fair shot at signing top talent.

"There's no question that, a market like Pittsburgh, a salary cap would be advantageous," Pirates owner Bob Nutting said.

The Yankees' offseason spending spree has sparked renewed talk of a cap, an issue owners haven't brought up in negotiations since the disastrous 1994-95 strike that wiped out the World Series for the first time in 90 years. But not all owners are critical of the Yankees' acquisition of pitchers CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett and infielder Mark Teixeira.

"I have no problem with what they've done," Kenney said. "They've done it within the rules, within the confines of our agreement.

"And if you look at the reality there, they've got a $1.3 billion stadium coming online," Kenney said. "They were probably relying on Wall Street to fill a lot of those seats. And they missed the playoffs for the first time in 13 years. So their reaction is probably similar to what I would do, which is, you've got to put a compelling product on the field when you open the doors of that new ballpark, and that's what they did."

Wolff's team recently agreed to a one-year, $5.25 million year with Jason Giambi, who had bolted Oakland after the 2001 season to sign a $120 million, seven-year contract with the Yankees.

Asked if the Yankees' spending concerned him, Wolff replied, "I probably should say it does, but to me it doesn't because, frankly, the more visible they are — they are baseball, traditionally. And they're not doing anything different than they've done traditionally for years.

"I think they benefit all of us more than they hurt us," Wolff said.

Indeed, New York's luxury tax payment — $26,862,702 — was just $141,000 shy of the Florida Marlins' entire 2008 payroll, which came to $27,003,450.

Attanasio said he wasn't bitter because the Yankees outbid Milwaukee for Sabathia, who joined the Brewers in midseason and helped pitched them into the playoffs.

"There's no sour grapes here," Attanasio said. "The Yankees are playing within the rules of the system. So you can't blame the team. You have to change the system."

Attanasio said a salary cap would make it easier for owners to control their payrolls.

"Obviously, by definition, if you have a salary cap you have some cost certainty because there are very clear parameters," Attanasio said. "So I think there are some merits to it."

One argument against a salary cap is the recent success of low-payroll clubs in the postseason.

Last fall, the Tampa Bay Rays made it to the World Series for the first time despite having the 28th-highest payroll — $51 million, or about $171 million less than the Yankees. In 2007, the low-budget Colorado Rockies won the NL pennant. And the perennially pinched Marlins have won a World Series more recently than the Yankees.

It may take more than a salary cap to help Nutting's Pirates, who have had 16 consecutive losing seasons, tying the 1933-48 Philadelphia Phillies as the longest-running losers in major American professional team sports.

"You see opportunities, whether it was Tampa Bay, whether it was Colorado the year before, there certainly is a model that teams with lower payrolls, smaller markets have succeeded, can succeed, and that's where we need to focus our attention," Nutting said. "We need to find ways to succeed in the current economic environment, and we're not going to use the hope of a salary cap as a crutch or as an excuse."

This is not just something that would be nice to see happen. This is something that must happen if the guy on main street hopes to see a game in the future.:(

McCovey
01-15-2009, 02:10 PM
Unfortunately, the players will never accept a salary cap. Also, some argue that a salary cap system would hurt the low revenue teams.


Let Freedom Ring
Busting the Myth of the Salary Cap

by Shawn Hoffman
Januray 9, 2009

Small-market teams love salary caps. Or rather, they think they do. At least on paper, caps stop teams in New York, Boston, and Chicago from oligopolizing the free-agent market, and should therefore help level the economic playing field. And, to a certain extent, they do; a small-market team in a capped league is more likely to acquire or retain top-tier talent. But there's a catch. That same small-market team will need to win, and keep winning, just to stay financially viable. And sometimes, winning might not even be enough.

Let's say, in some far-off universe, MLB owners and players actually did agree on a salary cap. With it would come the normal provisions: a salary floor at around 75-85 percent of the cap, and a guaranteed percentage of total industry revenues for the players. Since the players have been taking in about 45 percent of revenues the past few years, we'll keep it at that figure (the other three major sports leagues, which are all capped, each pay out over 50 percent).

Using 2008 as an example, the thirty teams took in about $6 billion (not including MLB Advanced Media revenue), for an average of $200 million per team. Forty-five percent of that (the players' share) is $90 million, which we'll use as the midpoint between our floor and cap. If we want to make the floor 75 percent of the cap (a low-end figure, relative to the other leagues), we can use $77 million and $103 million, respectively.

With a $103 million cap, nine teams would have been affected last year, and a total of about $286 million would have had to be skimmed off the top. Since total salaries have to remain at existing levels, the bottom twenty-one teams would have had to take on this burden, which had previously been placed on the Yankees (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/team_audit.php?team=NYA), Red Sox (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/team_audit.php?team=BOS), et al. On the other end, fourteen teams would have been under the payroll floor, by a total of $251 million. Even discounting the Marlins (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/team_audit.php?team=FLO)' $22 million payroll, the other thirteen teams would have had to spend an average of $15 million more just to meet the minimum. Some of those teams might be able to afford it; most wouldn't.

Imagine being Frank Coonelly in this situation. Coonelly, the Pirates (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/team_audit.php?team=PIT)' team president, has publicly supported a cap (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09004/939423-63.stm?cmpid=pirates.xml). Had our fictional cap/floor arrangement been instituted last year, the Pirates would have needed to increase their Opening Day payroll by $28 million. Not only would the team have taken a big loss, but Neal Huntington's long-term strategy would have been sabotaged, since the team would have had to sign a number of veterans just to meet the minimum payroll.

Now fast forward to 2009. Let's say the Pirates' sales staff runs into major headwinds, with the team struggling and the economy sinking. The team's top line takes a hit, falling $10 million from 2008. The Mets (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/team_audit.php?team=NYN) and Yankees, meanwhile, open their new ballparks, and each team increases its local revenue by $50 million. If the twenty-seven other teams are flat, total industry revenues rise by $90 million (not including any appreciation in national media revenue). Forty-five percent of that, of course, goes to the players. So even as the Pirates' purchasing power decreases, the payroll floor actually rises.

In other words, without a more egalitarian distribution of income, the system crumbles.

Until recently, the NFL has been uniquely fit for this type of model, since most of its revenues have come from national television contracts. But now, with local revenues rising, small-market teams are feeling the pinch. This past May, the owners unanimously voted to opt out of their CBA (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80868b78&template=without-video&confirm=true), which was supposed to run through 2012. Some blamed the players' share of revenues. Others, including Dan Rooney of the Steelers, cited the need for more local revenue sharing.

But sharing local revenue has a major drawback: it is a tax, which inevitably lowers incentives and decreases output. If the NFL shared all (or even most) local intake, why would an individual team ever look to maximize revenues at its own cost (i.e. by hiring a sales staff, or cleaning its own stadium)?

The NHL, which also has a hard cap, does very little revenue sharing, partly thanks to an overly convoluted system (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/95817). On a league-wide level, the results have been very positive; the NHL has had record revenues every year since its lockout, and Gary Bettman has been very positive (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28453054?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS) about this season as well. But the NHL is a great example of why caps and capitalism don't mix: as the league grows, it ends up leaving teams behind. Small-market clubs like the Columbus Blue Jackets and the Nashville Predators are forced to spend almost two-thirds of their revenue on player payroll. And the Phoenix Coyotes, after years of hemorrhaging money, are on the verge of going bankrupt (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3790207).

So what's the best solution? Certainly not the NBA's soft-cap system, which has too many problems to even count—imagine having to take on Luis Castillo or Carl Pavano (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/pavanca01.php) every time you wanted to unload a high-priced veteran.

So instead of these models, what if there was an uncapped league, with limited local revenue sharing to support small-market teams, and a post-season system that naturally created tremendous parity? Does this sound familiar? It should. It's what MLB has had in place for over a decade, leading to record growth in both attendance and revenue.

The expanded postseason is key. More than any other sport, MLB's playoff system acts as an equalizer. Fair or not, in broad strokes, a team that wins 83 games in a bad division (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/STL/2006.shtml) has as much chance of winning the World Series as the Yankees or the Red Sox. Seemingly, no matter how much those teams spend over the winter, that competitive advantage is neutralized come October.

So while the capped leagues all struggle to find the right balance between capitalism and socialism, baseball continues to prosper operating within a much more free-market system. Teams in big markets and small markets alike are making money, and everyone has a chance to win it all.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And right now, baseball is anything but broke.

Shawn Hoffman writes about business and baseball at Squawking Baseball (http://www.squawkingbaseball.com/).

Bear
01-15-2009, 03:00 PM
One thing that you learn as you age is never say never. There is nothing certain in life but I fear this is a lesson you still need to learn.:)

McCovey
01-15-2009, 03:48 PM
One thing that you learn as you age is never say never. There is nothing certain in life but I fear this is a lesson you still need to learn.:)
Of course "never" is a long time. Then I'll say the players don't want and will not agree to a salary cap at this point in time. is that better, Bear? :D Given the current system in place and various public statements from the Player's Union they have zero incentive to accept a salary cap today. MLB is gushing with money. The owners and players know this. The players are standing in a position of strength. Why should they accept a salary cap if they don't have to? :shrug: There has always been "rich" teams and "poor" teams. And there will always will be. It comes down to what the players and owners can agree upon and right now the players have zero interest in a salary cap.

SF Kid
01-15-2009, 07:01 PM
Maybe the players would like to shine shoes in New Orleans.

Baseball needs a salary cap and I'd support shutting down the entire sport until the players figure out that they have it made salary cap or no salary cap.

#25
01-15-2009, 09:22 PM
I admit I don't know enough about it to know if it would work. However in principal it sounds good and lord knows they will have to do something or soon the Parks will be empty.

TkleMstr52
01-15-2009, 10:37 PM
Ya, if they were not stupid with thier money it would take a few years for a pretty good player to be set for life, even with the cap!? The only thing that keeps this from being a game is money!! This is why a ton of folks prefer college sports, those kids play for the love of the game and fun!! These greedy bastards complaining is sickening. Cap it. The players are not alone tho, they are all greedy!! Here is to players like Ryan Braun:beerbang::beerbang:

McCovey
01-15-2009, 11:50 PM
I admit I don't know enough about it to know if it would work. However in principal it sounds good and lord knows they will have to do something or soon the Parks will be empty.
That's unlikley to happen. Baseball attendance continues to be strong. Also, some teams have lowered ticket prices. Also, even if there is a salary cap that doesn't mean ticket prices will drop.

SF Kid
01-16-2009, 05:34 AM
I agree. Fans are like sheep. They complain a lot about. They threaten to boycott games but in the end they go.

Frankly though for the long term good of the game a salary cap would be the best thing. Maybe not for the players but I'm sorry I don't feel bad for any of them. Any of you guys making $800k/year or whatever the MLB minimum is? didn't think so. ;)

Do you think at some point the owners will just dig their heels in and call off a season or two? Probably not likely but you have to believe other than a few cities the owners must be sick every time they hear of another Yankee signing that they couldn't even think about.

SF Kid
01-16-2009, 05:37 AM
Also, even if there is a salary cap that doesn't mean ticket prices will drop.No it doesn't but it may stabilize things a bit. Ticket prices like anything else will continue to go up it's just what it is. I don;'t think that has anything to do with the salary cap idea. Owners, especially small market owners, are wondering how they can compete with the Boston's, NY,s and LA's of the league and still make money as they envisioned. As I've said, except for the players, a salary cap makes all sorts of sense. Parity has made the NFL what it is today and baseball could use a strong does of that to keep things interesting for the fans.

McCovey
01-16-2009, 11:29 AM
No it doesn't but it may stabilize things a bit. Ticket prices like anything else will continue to go up it's just what it is. I don;'t think that has anything to do with the salary cap idea. Owners, especially small market owners, are wondering how they can compete with the Boston's, NY,s and LA's of the league and still make money as they envisioned. As I've said, except for the players, a salary cap makes all sorts of sense. Parity has made the NFL what it is today and baseball could use a strong does of that to keep things interesting for the fans.
Parity, NFL style, is not a good thing. It's something to be avoided. It is what has ruined the NFL for me. I used to be an NFL junkie until I got tired of all the bland teams and terrible football. The Arizona Cardinals are in the NFC title game at home. Fifteen years ago a team like the Cardinals would have been wiped out in the first round of the the playoffs.

Also the salary cap int he NFL has several major problems. How many times have teams been forced to release simply to get back under their salary cap? Does that make any sense?

Baseball already has enough parity as it is. Over the past 10 years just about every team have been in the playoffs. A salary cap will not make the Pittsburgh Pirates or Kansas City Royals or Washington Nationals contenders. The Pirates, especially make me sick. They whined and complained about needing to get a new stadium to compete. They basically lied to the fans in Pittsburgh. They got their new stadium. Yet, they have yet to compete in the NL Central. The Pirates argued that with a new stadium they could sign big name free agents. When was the last time the Pirates signed a big money free agent? With a new stadium and lots of money from the luxury tax the Pirates still can't compete. What makes people think that forcing the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, etc., to spend less money will allow the Pirates to compete? If someone could explain that to me I'd be very happy. :)

SF Kid
01-16-2009, 08:08 PM
To each his own. I'm sick and tired of the Yankees and RedSox buying any and every good player they want. Pathetic.

TkleMstr52
01-18-2009, 01:51 PM
I have an issue with the players, when is enough enough, they always go after the biggest contract, very few of these guys play the game for love of or fun!! I wish the Giants had Braun and Hamels, they accepted way less than they are worth to stay with thier current teams, how often does that happen? I will root for guys like these until I cant root any more:yourock:!!!