A salary cap just puts more money into the owners' pockets.

Put a cap on an owner's earnings, including revenue sharing, and it would be more equitable. But I don't think many owners would want to have a cap placed on themselves.

I kinda disagree with a salary cap, considering...

'02 Angels ($61.7 mil & championship)
'03 Marlins ($49.4 mil & championship)
'07 Rockies ($54 mil)
'08 Rays ($43.8 mil)

4 of the past 7 years have featured a team with a low end payroll (under $62 million) and 2 of them won. The Marlins even beat the mighty Yankees payroll. So payroll has little to do with winning in this decade. Personally I'd rather have a winning team, even if it lacked huge stars.

If I had the time, I'd check what the average payroll for a playoff team is...or maybe, the average payroll of a non-Boston-non-NY playoff team is.

Here's something to ponder... what's the 5 highest payrolls ever to win a World Series? How 'bout the 5 highest payrolls to lose a World Series?

Of course, this is a good time to mention the lack of the 07-08 NY Mets making the playoffs, or the '08 Tigers, or the '08 Yankees. How 'bout them White Sox and Mariners and Braves? Oh MY!

I haven't even brought up any of the other $100 million teams from '07 or '06 or so on. Chances are, if your team is spending over $100 million, they'll be no good.

yankess suck

Just move a team like the Marlins to New York or New Jersey. Let them all compete for the pool of spectators and money that is concentrated in NY.

I once spoke with Scott Boras at an Arizona Fall League game, and I mentioned that I thought baseball should make everyone a free agent. (An old Charlie Finley idea) Boras dismissed that idea. I told him I didn't think it would effect him that much and he replied it would never work. He never gave me a reason why he thought it was a bad idea. Charlie Finley knew what he was talking about when he proposed this idea. Too bad baseball never listens to mavericks.

I once spoke with Scott Boras at an Arizona Fall League game, and I mentioned that I thought baseball should make everyone a free agent. (An old Charlie Finley idea) Boras dismissed that idea. I told him I didn't think it would effect him that much and he replied it would never work. He never gave me a reason why he thought it was a bad idea. Charlie Finley knew what he was talking about when he proposed this idea. Too bad baseball never listens to mavericks.

Bill James had the best idea, and it was for revenue sharing, not a cap. Based upon the premise that it takes two teams to play a ball game, he suggested that a team's revenue (presumably from tickets alone) should be divided in half, with one half remaining with the team of origin, the other half to go into an Away Team pot to be divided equally.

It would recognize that the best drawing teams deserve to gain more income while spreading some of the wealth to the teams those best drawers have to play.

To me it seems fair; a reasonable response to the actual conditions. Also it would tend to level the field, not entirely but moreso than what we have today. And I am not sure an artificially leveled field would be a good thing.

dd, I kind of like that idea too, except for one thing. There is no doubt in my mind that a number of owners would just pocket the dough, rather than spending it on their teams.

There's also the problem that it reduces the incentive for teams to figure out clever new ways to make money. The Krafts complain about NFL revenue sharing for just this reason.

Oh, also, emains: way to represent RSN!

What the Yankees have done this offseason is Exhibit One in the case for a salary cap. The Yankees have not really hurt themselves financially that much since they terminated so many players with large contracts and the income from the increased ticket prices for the new stadium should help pay the exorbitant salaries they are paying C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira. Chien-Ming Wang is capable of having a better season than Sabathia or Burnett yet is being paid only $5 million. Now they expect Andy Pettitte to come back and pitch for less in 2009.

Teams do share ticket revenue with the visiting team. They need to share local TV and radio revenue the same way. I think it should be based on how well the visiting team does in the home team's ratings.

The truth is there is plenty of revenue sharing in baseball. Not all teams spend it on their major league players, however.

I love the Red Sox, but more power to the Yanks for working the system over. Their management did the best job of concealing their royal flush until all the money was in the pot. Baseball deserves all the frustrated fans that result from obscene salary runs like the Yanks have been on this offseason. Sure they are replacing salary that came off the books (Giambi, cough cough) but that overlooks the fact that what they were already shelling out was absurd to begin with. I am in favor of a cap too, lesser-heeled franchises might not spend more, but many will, because the big prize will not seem so far out of reach, and the top end salaries will likely come somewhat back to earth. this is one free market that won't really sort itself out.

One thing that does seem to happen too is if other teams get in on the bidding, it simply drives the price up, yet the Yankees still come away with the player. So then when other FA's come along, their value is inflated..........

I have not heard one good reason yet for a salary cap. The only teams that should complain are Toronto and Tampa Bay bc they play in the AL east with NY and Boston. Baltimore has the money they just choose not to spend it. Other teams can get to the post season just fine with the Yanks spending their dough. So all this whining about a salary cap is a bunch of nonsense. A salary cap would just line the pockets of the owners.

Not unless you tie league revenues to the cap, and have a salary floor. Then you guarantee a certain percentage of revenue goes to players, and that each team spends a minimum amount on the product on the field.

Clearly, the strongest argument for a cap is economic equality, thus making the winner the team that most efficiently uses its resources by acquiring talent through superior scouting and game play. This, of course, assumes that baseball (or any sport) should be "fair" in regards to the actual athletic competition, as opposed to a darwinian corporate view in which the actual team on the field is but a bonus for the bottom line. Whatever side you line up on, that is the basic starting point.

My gut tells me that the athletic competition should be fair, since I don't root for Ford, Apple, or The Gap, I just buy the best product. Being a fan (usually) is not like that, as there is a deeper connection with the Yankees or A's or Pirates. Thus, I would want the product on the field to be the most important aspect. Whether this is solved by a cap (or some other approach) doesn't matter to me. Honestly, I like the approach the NHL has taken. It can be better, but it keeps most teams competitive while guaranteeing money to the players.