Salary Cap Or No

TomiTomi Posts: 574 ✭✭✭

With these huge contracts in baseball recently, would you rather baseball have a cap where a team cannot spend a dollar over a set cap or would you rather leave it and have a luxury tax with teams spending whatever they want. I would be more impressed if great teams were put together with all teams spending a set amount instead of some teams just buying whoever they want.

Comments

  • lightningboylightningboy Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭

    Definitely a hard cap. Not exactly sure how luxury tax works with respect to whether or not there is any actual limit to how much over the luxury tax threshold an owner can go if they want. Otherwise, in theory, you could have Jeff Bezos buy a team, and have a billion dollar plus yearly payroll. And, regardless of how many championships they might win, his team would not owe any income taxes.

  • BarndogBarndog Posts: 20,130 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I prefer the free market. No cap, no tax, no minimum. You own the team, you decide!

  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm DEAD SET against the stupid salary cap. It makes it impossible to keep a team together. The owner should be able to pay the FA's whatever they want to keep the player. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT!!!!!!


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DIMEMAN said:
    I'm DEAD SET against the stupid salary cap. It makes it impossible to keep a team together. The owner should be able to pay the FA's whatever they want to keep the player. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT!!!!!!

    If the cowboys spend a billion and still exit in the first round then they should spend 2 billion ?

  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 7,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Game has left me. Don't really care.

  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    it doesn't matter how much jerry has to spend , he is dumber than a sack of doorknobs

  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bronco2078 said:
    it doesn't matter how much jerry has to spend , he is dumber than a sack of doorknobs

    I know....... that's how he became a multi Billionaire. ;)


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 18,546 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What would the cap be? 100 Billion dollars? These contracts are so high it would be hard to put together a team together. If they want parity then a cap is the only way to get it, the big market teams will always have an edge otherwise. Either way I say free market

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭✭

    no cap, let the market decide.

  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    doesn't matter in baseball its a dead sport walking. Either way its going under

  • JRR300JRR300 Posts: 316 ✭✭✭

    the sport needs a cap; I have no issue with the current cap system. What I do have a problem with is when an owner decides he can't compete or whatever reason he concocts (MARLINS) and trades away his team, spends nothing on salaries and collects from the other owners with the distribution of the luxury tax. That owner should not be rewarded. I've seen it happen in many other places as well. JMO

  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭

    There needs to be a cap in Baseball, so the small market teams can keep their star players. Its been unfair for too many years.

    IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭✭

    I think the market should decide. If a ¨small market¨ owner refuses to spend, that is on them. winning will make teams lots and lots of money. they should invest the money or sell. perhaps there should be a league minimum cap. if a team refuses to spend a certain amount, they have to pay up.

  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Baseball is dead. They put off a pitch clock for 5 years or so, meanwhile games get 5 or 10 minutes longer then next year longer still . 162 4 hour games a year plus playoffs is the future.

    For those that say the tv money is always going to be there , no way. ESPN is dying faster than baseball, regular tv is dying . Streaming is the future , that means these networks are no longer going to be able to pay mlb .

    The thing with streaming is the provider has no illusions as to what people are watching, they know exactly when you turn on and off. No one streams fluff or commercials. A sports channel that carries local games is not going to stream a game then 19 hours of fishing shows and infomercials the rest of the day, literally not one customer will voluntarily watch those things. That station withers away and dies.

  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 7,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bronco2078 said:
    Baseball is dead. They put off a pitch clock for 5 years or so, meanwhile games get 5 or 10 minutes longer then next year longer still . 162 4 hour games a year plus playoffs is the future.

    For those that say the tv money is always going to be there , no way. ESPN is dying faster than baseball, regular tv is dying . Streaming is the future , that means these networks are no longer going to be able to pay mlb .

    The thing with streaming is the provider has no illusions as to what people are watching, they know exactly when you turn on and off. No one streams fluff or commercials. A sports channel that carries local games is not going to stream a game then 19 hours of fishing shows and infomercials the rest of the day, literally not one customer will voluntarily watch those things. That station withers away and dies.

    Good post.

  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 7,874 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2, 2019 6:31AM

    I did watch fishing shows though....but half an hour was plenty.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭✭

    @bronco2078 said:
    Baseball is dead. They put off a pitch clock for 5 years or so, meanwhile games get 5 or 10 minutes longer then next year longer still . 162 4 hour games a year plus playoffs is the future.

    For those that say the tv money is always going to be there , no way. ESPN is dying faster than baseball, regular tv is dying . Streaming is the future , that means these networks are no longer going to be able to pay mlb .

    The thing with streaming is the provider has no illusions as to what people are watching, they know exactly when you turn on and off. No one streams fluff or commercials. A sports channel that carries local games is not going to stream a game then 19 hours of fishing shows and infomercials the rest of the day, literally not one customer will voluntarily watch those things. That station withers away and dies.

    69 million attenders may disagree with you. while there was a 4% decrease from 2017, that is most likely due to the terrible weather from last spring. in april alone there were 102 games played in temps less than 50 degrees. there were also 54 postponements, the highest number since 1989. 26 of those were for weekend games, the highest attended games.

    television ratings are increasing for almost all of the regional sports networks. Their ratings in primetime are up for 29 teams. 12 teams are #1 in their markets for primetime. 8 more are in their top 3. MLB ranks #1 in cable primetime in every MLB market except for Miami.

    Keep in mind that MLB drew 69 million attenders in 2019. NHL 22 Mil, NBA 22 Mil, NFL 17 Mil.
    average attendance: MLB 28,800, NHL 17,446, NBA 17,987, NFL 67,100.

    now, if the MLB season was changed from 162 games to 16 played one each weekend, I believe they would be drawing very similar numbers to that of the NFL.

    no, I dont think baseball is dead

  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 7,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Did 69 million actually show up at the games or was that announced attendance.

    Lot of corporate seats go unfilled for the non playoff teams as the season progresses.

    Last MLB game I attended was Summer of 1994. Tiger stadium. Team was bad but a friend wanted to see Griffey play. It was a week night. Though would could get some decent day of game tickets.

    All they had were dreck seats. Bought them. Easily half of the better seats were vacant. Most were season tickets that no one wanted.

    I never was into the moving up to the empty seat game so watched Griffey field from up close.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭✭

    I do believe every sport announces their own attendance, no?

  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    69 million divided by 162 games and how many teams?

    football did 17 million in a 16 game schedule 1/10th the number of games

  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    also tv ratings are fake news always have been , phony numbers designed to rip off those that buy adds

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭✭

    I listed the per game attendance above.

    MLB is very profitable on television. if it were not, would cable and network TV continue to pay the billions? wait until gambling takes off. sports, including MLB will be even bigger.

    If Baseball is dying, what about BB and Hockey? they both play half the games MLB do and draw 11,000 fans less to each game. those sports must be on life support.

    you are deluding yourself if you think MLB is dying.

  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2, 2019 1:26PM

    its all dying craig , there are so many options people are all doing their own thing. As far as tv contracts go some of those deals are 5 years old . When did ESPN ratings start falling off a cliff? 2 years ago? its continuing in the same direction. If a new contract comes up the bids will probably level off or go down.

    The media companies , cable especially have been abusing subscribers and people have long memories. We vote with our feet if we have options

    Everything has its day in the sun then fades away. Ticket prices have an upper limit, cable bills have limits, player salaries will peak at some point too.

    Its ok for baseball to die , its not like the planet will outlive it but much the way we are treating it

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2, 2019 4:08PM

    I think most people would say MLB was more popular years ago when the other sports were not as popular and television/internet was not around or as viable a choice to draw fans away from baseball. I chose a season from many years ago to compare to modern figures. I took one from the golden years of willie, Mickey and the duke, when the economy was going pretty well and baseball was king. Not many games were televised either. Your best option to watch a game was to see it live. So let's look at 1956. Now I realize there were only 16 teams at the time, and only 154 games. So we will use let game data. Average per game attendance in 1956 was 13,363. 2018, 28,800/game. There are TONS of options today yet attendance per game is 2x what it was when MLB was king.

    Yup, baseball is dying.

  • TabeTabe Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭

    @Coinstartled said:
    I did watch fishing shows though....but half an hour was plenty.

    As did I. Was a big fan of The Fishing Hole with Jerry McKinnis. Met him at a show when I was a kid and he was extremely kind. Pretty much exactly what you saw on TV - laid back, personable, and really, really nice.

Sign In or Register to comment.