Will MLB BOG Push For Salary Cap In Next CBA?
- Thread starter DaBadGuy7
- Start date
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
I dont think it will have much support honestly.
The rich owners want to be able to spend. The poor owners wont want it because under the current system they get ~$50 million a year each from the rich teams. Revenue sharing would almost certainly be dead in a cap situation
The rich owners want to be able to spend. The poor owners wont want it because under the current system they get ~$50 million a year each from the rich teams. Revenue sharing would almost certainly be dead in a cap situation
Voight
#winning
I highly doubt it. There isn't much interest for one, the smaller market owners like Butting have zero desire to build a winning team and are fine with collecting their revenue sharing checks.
It's not like parity doesn't exist. In the last decade, only the Dodgers and Astros have won it more than once.
It's not like parity doesn't exist. In the last decade, only the Dodgers and Astros have won it more than once.
Not completely true, Hal Steinbrenner for years has stated how much he doesn’t believe a team needs to spend over 200 million payroll to win (Rays being the best example). He might be the one of big market owners that want a cap. If you read the article, the RSN situation is another big reason why a cap might happen:
Certainly you are right about teams like Pirates not wanting a floor, but don’t how they won’t be in the owners are in agreement on the issue. I think a cap is more likely than most want to admit imo
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Nope.
And even if the cheaper owners ever pushed for one, then the richer owners would counterpush for a significant salary floor in retaliation. And vice versa.
Neither are going to happen.
And even if the cheaper owners ever pushed for one, then the richer owners would counterpush for a significant salary floor in retaliation. And vice versa.
Neither are going to happen.
Mightygoose
Registered User
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 27,401
- 14,491
Voight
#winning
You're correct, but it's an extremely soft cap. The only "punishment" is the tax goes up if you are consistently over year after year.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
Just make the penalties stricter for going over the luxury tax. Instead of moving back a number of spots, just forfeit it altogether. A stricter penalty would be to give the pick to the team who finishes the closest behind them without having gone over the luxury cap.
Voight
#winning
They do and it works. People are just bringing this up because the Dodgers managed to make some massive free agent signings in the last couple of years (Freeman, Ohtani, Yamamoto, Snell) and they are likely jealous their teams didn't do the same. I dont have an issue with it at all, if the Dodgers want to pay the tax, let them. Their only goal is to win championships, more teams should think like them.
If players are willing to defer huge amounts of money, that's on them.
I think the owners would do well to focus on tightening Free Agency / contract lengths than having a hard salary cap. An easier win would be pushing for 8 years in the Majors before free agency rather than 6 as well as length limits for each contract.
There should be more insistence of a punitive (high) salary floor than a salary cap, in my opinion.
Big market, spend-willing owners should not be punished. Small market owners who work on a shoestring budget should act like billionaire owners who are part of an exclusive club who can afford owning a big league sports team.
Big market, spend-willing owners should not be punished. Small market owners who work on a shoestring budget should act like billionaire owners who are part of an exclusive club who can afford owning a big league sports team.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 27,401
- 14,491
No there should be a salary cap, and along with that you will get a salary floor.
Would it benefit mlb much if more smaller or mid sized markets won vs LA, Houston, NY, etc such as KC, Stl, Pitt? Probably not.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
There is already a salary tax in place. So teams can pay whatever they like but they go over a certain about--they pay the tax
www.espn.com
Record 9 MLB teams docked $311M in luxury tax
The Dodgers, Mets and Yankees were the highest penalized among the record nine teams to be over the MLB's luxury tax threshold for 2024.
Strummer53
Registered User
- Sep 11, 2021
- 113
- 115
It's not the cap that's the problem, although the luxury tax could be strengthened.
How about a cap floor, do something with deferrals and other cap hit shenanigans, and kill the stupid bonus draft picks for the "weaker" markets.
How about a cap floor, do something with deferrals and other cap hit shenanigans, and kill the stupid bonus draft picks for the "weaker" markets.
MLB needs to get more clubs to actually compete. Too many club owners content to pocket the luxury tax money vs use it to improve the roster.
Strummer53
Registered User
- Sep 11, 2021
- 113
- 115
I get ROI and that.
However, owning a sports franchise is pretty much akin to printing money for the super rich.
Does the MLB care enough about competitive disadvantage between franchises? The Luxury tax isn't relevant enough but it's at least a gesture.
It's not the same situation as the NHL where the cap was needed for financial viability.
The NFLs cap is for competitive purposes more than financial. Does the MLB need the tier 2 and tier 3 markets to be relevant if the top 10 or so can carry the total league viability?
It's not the same situation as the NHL where the cap was needed for financial viability.
The NFLs cap is for competitive purposes more than financial. Does the MLB need the tier 2 and tier 3 markets to be relevant if the top 10 or so can carry the total league viability?
