MLB payrolls cap/floor thoughts?

[CB3UK]

I was listening to WLW at work last night and Lance was on a good rant about how absurd MLB's payroll situation is. After Oakland traded Sean Manaea the other day, their payroll for the year sits at $33 mil. Only Baltimore has outdone them for outright cheapness with a $30 mil payroll. Teams like the Phillies and Mets have a larger payroll IN ONE MONTH than those teams spend the entire year. You've got guys like Correa in Minnesota making $35 Cole in New York making like $38. Dodgers payroll is arond $270.

This disparity is absurd. I've always said there needs to be a salary cap. I don't fault the teams that will spend for doing so. Good for them, I'm glad their owners are willing to pony up to at least try to win. Big payrolls doesn't always equal world series....Royals, Rays etc have shown us that. But look at the parity of the NFL. Look at the revenue sharing from the TV contracts. Baseball's greedy owners is killing the sport. Analytics is a way to justify a cheap payroll and kill any action. Need to get rid of that horseshit, and there needs to be a floor for spending too. Look no further than the Reds. We were at $90 mil last I checked I'm sure it's gone up since with a few moves we've made.

But the point is, I'm more angry at the teams NOT willing to spend than I am at the Yankees and Dodgers of the world. I'm more interested in seeing teams having to meet a threshold. Owners cant meet that, then you have no business owning a team. I don't necessarily want to handicap the big teams, but it IS in the best interest of the game to create more parity. More parity equals more interest equals more revenue and everyone gets filthy rich.

This piss anyone else off?

 

[ohiocatfan826]

I agree. The issue has always been that the small market teams have to basically trade their best players before the end of their contracts so they get something in return. I am a fan of a small market team and what I see, we develop an all-star and then just wait and watch until Boston, the New York teams, the Dodgers etc come in and offer them more than the entire payroll of the team. And I get it is a self fulfilling issue for the owners, spend more, more competitive team more fans come. Attendance gets up, cut payroll and they make a ton as the fans take a little while to respond to the fact that the team is no longer competitive and stop coming. Owners then say cant spend any more money cause we dont have butts in the seats. Its trash, I would love to see a floor and cap. I mean technically they have a cap now, but its just a financial penalty (a tax for being over) but they dont straight up force it like the NFL.

 

[kywildcatsfannumber1]

No coincidence Bob Castellini voted against raising the luxury tax during the lockout. Teams like Cincinnati will suffer yet it doesn't have to be this way. Tampa Bay does it the right way with one of the lowest budgets, pay the right guys like Wander Franco and not mortgage the franchise throwing money away to Homer Bailey/Mike Moustakas caliber players. I respect the Dodgers desire and willingness to spend because they care about winning. Something our organization doesn't care about.

 

[CB3UK]

Totally agree with both of your takes

 

[TuckyBlue]

It’s not quite as extreme as that. Think those numbers are only guaranteed contracts but it doesn’t count Baltimore paying Chris Davis 23M to not play for them as an example. A’s project around 50M and Baltimore 64 per Fangraphs. But the disparity is still pretty wild.

A true floor won’t happen as the players won’t approve a true salary cap, but would love for teams to be punished for small payrolls. Tax the poor (bad phrase). Take the international money away, lose draft picks, hell, tax them money for dollars they are under like they tax the big spenders. But don’t think we’ll never see a true floor unless the players give a true cap, and that won’t happen, and the owners will take advantage of that.