MLB Economics- What is your opinion on adding a salary cap / salary floor?

47 comments

1. If you do a salary cap you also need to normalize the tax rate throughout the league, otherwise, you’re only going to give the advantage to low tax states, just like hockey.

2. A salary cap is a gift to owners. The Union should not agree to it at any time.

   While it is true that there are big teams in big markets that can outspend others, baseball’s greatest value has always been in players who have not yet reached free agency, and every single club owner is richer than god and could do whatever they wanted.

3. My opinion is I’m sick of hearing about it

4. I’m sure all these billionaire owners are unabashedly free market when it comes to their businesses. No thanks on a salary cap.

5. Floor and ceiling. Make the owners pay and level the field so small market teams can keep their stars.

6. The brewers proved money is all that matters. Cobbling together a team on a budget only gets you so far. With a cap the dodgers can’t afford all the talent so it gets spread around the league

7. It’s silly. The owners make the rules and know how to get around them.

8. A cap is dumb in the scenario of the mlb.

   A floor tho… i’m all in

9. i don’t think it’s going to help anything except the owners make even more money

10. If the dodgers repeat as champs it’ll be incredibly likely that they’ll move to a cap by 2030. Can’t have the dodgers spending over double the brewers and winning the World Series based on. Stacked roster and clever financing with deferred money schemes

11. A salary floor is much more necessary than a salary cap, though both would be nice. IMO, the fact that 10 teams in the league basically aren’t trying to win is a far bigger problem than 3 or 4 teams spending exorbitantly to win consistently. The Dodgers would not have the same consistent dominance in a league filled with mid-tier spenders trying to compete.

12. I dislike it in that I think it’s good for the owners and I don’t want player contracts suppressed for the owners sake.

    I’m all for more competitive balance, but there has been more parity in baseballs post season than all the salary cap leagues… bad owners gonna bad owner

13. I think we need a salary floor to make owners spend money.

    But as a Dodgers fan, just do whatever is needed so people can stop complaining about us.

14. I heard someone make the point- the players will never go for a “cap.” The best course of action is to go the NBA route and have there be team building consequences with teeth to the current luxury tax rules.

15. As fans I think we need to be skeptical of team owners trying to pocket more money, and also understand that while money can maybe pay for baseline talent it doesn’t guarantee championships and there are many other aspects teams like the Dodgers get right to make the salaries pay off. It’s also not going to solve issues of underperforming teams or costs associated with attending games without a lot of other controls in place.

    I don’t think it would single-handedly destroy the game, but I worry about owners having free rein to suppress player contracts for the good of no one but themselves.

16. All the owners are bastards. The Green Bay Packers have the closest thing to an ideal ownership model we’ll ever see. Unfortunately it’ll never happen again.

17. What the Dodgers and Mets are doing is bad for the sport. So is what the As and Pirates are doing. A cap and floor is a necessity.

    The other major sports in the US have had this figured out for decades. Green Bay can compete in the NFL. Star players like Giannis can stay in Milwaukee. Meanwhile, half of MLB fans know on Opening Day their team has almost no shot unless the stars align in some insane way.

18. In terms of fairness, I definitely think a floor and cap would be great. In terms of what will actually happen, I don’t think they will become a thing because it could lose them money. Sports are a business. Sometimes, a core component of that is not fairness. Sad? Yes, but that’s the reality we live in

19. Floor, 100%. Cap I care less about. I do think they should ban deferred money deals though.

20. The players are never gonna let there be a salary cap and the owners are never gonna let there be a salary floor.

    All of this talking and articles about it are pointless.

    Owners make a shit load of money. Players make a shit load of money. Fans still come out in record numbers. Baseball has never made more money than it does right now. And everyone who thinks that something needs to change is delusional.

    Major league baseball is an entertainment company. It’s not supposed to be fair. Every team isn’t supposed to win the World Series at some point. They are providing a service of entertainment and are very successful at it. Look at what the Brewers owner said earlier this summer. This is their plan being successful.

    Fans seem to think that the only thing that means success is a World Series title and rich people making money is what they think is success. They don’t give a shit that fans think it’s unfair.

    It’s also worth noting that baseball is a zero sum game. Everyone wants their team to win 100 games in a season. But then another team has to lose 100 games. If everyone wants it to be totally fair, full parity, then every team will have a .500 record. Can you imagine anything more boring?

21. I think the floor is what should be done, it forces teams to be more competitive and spreads out talent. Caps are pro owner and I’m not sure how well they’d work with not having a relegation system and the MLB being more international.

22. Leave it as is.

    It’s been this way forever. Baseball has had the most variety in winners and playoff teams of any of the major sports in the last while.

    Hockey has the strictest cap, and the best players STILL force themselves to the biggest markets. Everytime a major FA or trade comes up, it’s always NY, Chicago, LA, Toronto, or tax free destinations. Salary cap only makes it so you can’t acquire superstars anyway except for via the draft.

    The owners have the money. If they don’t, they need to be forced to sell. There’s no reason the pirates have a 40 million dollar payroll and go up to 140 and compete.

    It’s owners being happy with the luxury tax payouts or whatever other shared revenue they get.

23. I’d say we need more a salary floor than a cap. At least half the owners in the league are cheap as hell and don’t want to invest in their teams.

24. A cap would be unbelievably stupid. Giving cheap lazy owners further excuses to be cheap and lazy is unquestionably worse for the game than teams spending because they want to win. I’m all for a salary floor though. That would spread players around more than a cap would because teams would be *forced* to spend. Sort of like the A’s going out and getting Severino

25. Dodgers can offer players the best chance to get a ring and have a great place to live if you’re rich. Even another team offering the same money can’t offer those same things

26. Honestly I kind of like the open nature of the salary system in baseball.

    To me – less parity is more interesting. Underdogs winning actually means something in this sport. It’s not like hockey where its basically a coin flip when the puck drops.

27. The only people in favor of a cap (even with a floor) are owners and fans who do not understand a cap =/= parity.

    It is interesting to note the Dodgers, who are being painted as the epitome of the payroll imbalance, have been spending (by far) more than most anyone for a decade. Nobody seemed to mind when they were perpetually losing in the playoffs and even the 2020 title was written off as a COVID aberration.

    Winning a title last year and favorites to repeat has changed popular opinion and now cries of ‘it’s not fair!’ are more common.

    What is not ever mentioned is the spending from the NY teams, who have been just as robust as the Dodgers over the past decade. The Mets are the punchline the Dodgers used to be, and the Yankees have been the face of radical payroll for so long nobody ever talks about it.

    Regardless of payroll expenses, a team still needs good talent evaluators to be successful. As the Mets have proven (repeatedly) opening the checkbook does not guarantee success.

    Nor does a salary cap and floor driven league ensure parity. The NFL, North America’s most popular sports league, has seen one team win three titles in five years (and appeared in two more). The Jets have gone a decade without a winning record and missed the playoffs for 14 seasons.

    A salary cap is not going to suddenly make teams like Pittsburgh and Colorado relevant and good. These teams’ owners will simply find a way to pocket even more money.

28. Yeah lets go ahead and reward the teams with the cheap ass owners continually refuse to spend money on players in free agency. Lets go ahead and reward them by punishing the teams who are not afraid to spend more than 50% of their annual revenue on players. I am so sick and tired of this narrative and that fact that most of you continue to ignore the fact that you have cheap ass owners!

    If anything a Salary floor is needed more than a CAP!

29. I used to think MLB needed a cap and a floor and then I thought a player should be able to make as much as they can in their short window of opportunity. Ultimate I decided that I don’t get paid nor do I pay anyone in the MLB and it’s none of my business. Public opinions on such things are just fuel for the parties that look to make gains.

    My interest in all this is to watch games. If they strike or lockout and don’t show up for scheduled games, only thing I can do is watch something else. So let them work it out and leave me out of it. If not, they’ll force me to spend money and time elsewhere.

30. Im all in for both.

31. What about a tired revenue sharing system where your piece of the money received goes up based upon your payroll until you meet the average spent by all teams the previous year. That way, you can’t have a 40m payroll and still get 100m and pocket the profits. The more you spend, the more you get until you are at average. It doesn’t reward teams for building super teams, but does encourage spending. Could also take some of that as a pool rewarding playoffs.

32. I think a cap and floor need to occur together, and I think they need to reduce control years of they opt for them.

    One of the biggest reasons poor teams are able to compete is because they get six awesome years or great players, at heavy discount. It’s unfair to the players, but necessary. It becomes less necessary with a cap and floor.

33. There’s no possible universe where the players accept a cap with no floor, I think MLB knows they’ll have to have one if they want a cap. I think the main sticking points is whether the players will just draw a line in the sand that they won’t accept a cap regardless and how long are they willing to be on strike/locked out, and then if they do agree they’ll want to negotiate the floor higher to the point where small market owners say they can’t afford the floor.

34. I think it’s hilarious that the Mets get rich and finally steal ONE free agent from the Yankees, and all of the sudden we need a salary cap.

35. Don’t really like it. As a Jays fan, it is already so difficult to attract superstars to come take the money the team is offering and adding a salary cap would certainly make it more difficult to even compete with the likes of LA, Boston and NY to name a few.

36. I think a floor only. Make those low paying teams put up money. Taxes ate a huge reason for deferral. However deferral still cost the team, they put it into a trust for players at a later date when they live in a low tax area so we dont need a tax rule. Honestly all contracts should be paid out like this

37. When the owners open up and share their finances to show they actually are poor, then we can talk about a salary and floor. Until then, keep the pressure on and continue to force owners to spend more. Not every team can afford a payroll of the Dodgers, Yankees, or Mets, but every team can afford a contract like Yamamoto or Snell or Glasnow or any other number of players.

38. I’m firmly a believer of no cap without a pretty high floor. All these oligarchs have somehow gaslit their fanbases into thinking they can’t afford to put out a competitive team when in reality they’re just leeching off of the big market team’s revenue share. I think John Fisher is ruining this sport faaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr more than the Guggenheims or Steinbrenner.

39. Does a salary cap improve fan turnout at the ballpark and improve the rate at which fans tune into the broadcast?

40. Caps hurt players, so I’m not in favor of that. Player salaries should meet at least a minimum percentage of gross revenue, with any shortfall payable directly into a player compensation pool at the team level that pays a weighted bonus based on salary for that year. If the owner can’t afford to maintain a vanity project like an MLB team, they should sell to someone who can.

41. Stupid. There needs to be a competitive clause. Salary caps is a way for owners to pay less money despite making record profits

42. I hate the idea of a cap because it just gives the billionaires more money by spending less

    But I also hate the idea of no cap because of the massive disparity between large and small markets. There is just no way the Rockies, pirates, marlins and As can compete with the dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies.

43. Salary floor is a better idea for baseball than a salary cap, would keep the soft cap and cap penalties in place to subsidize the small market teams, and would be a rather easy sell to the players.

    But baseball might be the only sport where a salary cap becomes problematic.

44. Salary cap no, salary floor yes please!!!

45. A cap won’t happen at all. The Owners have nothing to actually leverage the players with other than just not playing. If revenue is so low for the Pirates and Rockies and A’s then losing a whole season would hurt them so much right? Mlb is in a great spot making record revenue record attendance,record viewership that’s alot of money. You think the owners would risk losing all the progress that Mlb has made in recent years just to pocket more money? The Owners have no leverage.

46. You need more innovative solutions than caps and floors.

    I think you need a cap, but then you give salary discounts against the cap if you keep home grown talent and don’t trade them.

    Say the salary cap is $200 million, but Jose Ramirez is on the team so his $30 million isn’t counted against the cap. You could actually have a $230 mil roster, in a $200 mil cap league. 

    The best teams in the league will then be the teams that foster homegrown talent the best to overcome the cap limit. Teams that have $300 million rosters, but sit at the $200 million cap and the rest is discounted. 

    This allows teams to pay homegrown talent more, without pinching the rest of the roster. 

    This discentivizes LA and New York from using small market and foreign teams as farm systems, you get financial incentive for local. 

    Something like this hypothetically keeps Lindor and Bieber in Cleveland. 

47. If you add a floor you also need to completely equalize revenue sharing on major outlets. For example, tv revenue would need to be 100% shared throughout the league.

    If you look at the revenue to payroll % list circulating, most teams end up at anywhere from 150-200m excess revenue (to account for non payroll expenses), meaning most teams are actually spending in payroll what they can afford. Adding a floor as-is will just bankrupt half the league.