“At the rate the Yankees are going, I’m not sure anyone can compete with them,” Attanasio said in an e-mail. “Frankly, the sport might need a salary cap.”

Yeah, aren't you sick of the Yankees winning the World Series every year?

How can small market teams hope to compete? A team like Tampa Bay, stuck in the same division with the Yankees AND Red Sox will never have a shot at the playoffs without a salary cap!

The Brewers don't want a salary cap so they can compete. They want a salary cap so they can pay players less.

AJM suggests Brewers owner STFU.

An owner of a business recommends a set of regulations which would increase his profits and profit-certainty? Story!

Arguments against a salary cap carry more weight when they don't come from fans of top 3 payroll teams.

Arguments against a salary cap carry more weight when they don't come from fans of top 3 payroll teams.

No they don't. They may be more persuasive, because people are irrational, but a good point is a good point no matter where it comes from.

You make a good point, MCoA.

Arguments against a salary cap carry more weight when they don't come from fans of top 3 payroll teams.

No they don't. They may be more persuasive, because people are irrational, but a good point is a good point no matter where it comes from.

It's perfectly rational to be skeptical of universalizing arguments offered in support of a policy by a person who has separate, parochial reasons to support a policy. That's why I think Attanasio's bullshitting us, and why I think Kyle S is right. The notion that arguments somehow arise out of pure mind and are judged as such is dubious historically, sociologically, and philosophically.

There's nothing obvious as to the correct arrangement of a professional sporting league. I have absolutely no idea what the best arrangement is.

My general policy is that I trust nothing that management ever says when they claim to be speaking for me as a fan. The players, while they do a lot of annoying ####, at least never claim to speak for me as a fan. And they play the game, which I rather enjoy watching. If I got to determine policy, I think some sort of payroll cap could make sense, but I don't trust the owners on this one little bit.

Once upon a time, external auditors like Arthur Andersen were well known and respected for their independent point of view. If you wanted to believe their financials, you didn't just take Management's word for it, because they were talking their book. Over time, those cultures have gone the way of the dodo (although Madoff didn't use a Big 4 firm, which is as heartening an endorsement as they can expect these days), and perhaps so has the idea that an unbiased point of view has more credibility than a shill. Which is a shame.

Anyway, Larry, you're talking your book. While I'm sure you'll have plenty of supporters drawing MR = MC graphs around here when it comes to a cap, from my point of view the way things are sure doesn't seem fair or competitive. But I guess to your point, the fact that the Yankees have been spectacularly bad at spending money since the turn of the century is proof positive that baseball doesn't need a salary cap.

Come on, Larry. The Rays' recipe for success includes smart management and, oh yeah, absolutely sucking for a decade to build up enough top draft picks to offset a miniscule payroll. Why would the fans of any other team balk at being told to accept abject failure for 10 straight years? The yankees are having a hissy fit at missing the playoffs by several games one time. Is it really fair to counsel "patience for thee but not for me!".

It's not surprising that people are crying "salary cap" right now, given the dollar amounts and the fact that the Yankees signed the top 2 biggest-name free agents (and #3 was signed by the Mets). But if you look at it, this offseason is really just an anomaly. The Yankees' 2009 payroll is still going to be lower than 2008. They just happen to have a phenomenal incentive (missing the playoffs) and opportunity (all those expiring contracts) at the same time that most teams are trying to cut back or are hesitant to make major commitments. It looks bad, but it's not part of some systematic problem.

(And I'm a Royals/Astros fan)

Frankly, the sport might need a salary cap.

Whether or not I agree with that statement, it falls along the lines of "it's too damn cold this December".

The problem isn't any of this, it's the divisional structure. The top three teams in the AL next year will be the Red Sox, Yankees, and Devil Rays, in whichever order, and that means one of the league's top three teams will be missing the playoffs. That's stupid, in a league where four teams make the playoffs.

Yeah, aren't you sick of the Yankees winning the World Series every year?

How can small market teams hope to compete? A team like Tampa Bay, stuck in the same division with the Yankees AND Red Sox will never have a shot at the playoffs without a salary cap!

The Brewers don't want a salary cap so they can compete. They want a salary cap so they can pay players less.

Small market teams are between a rock and a hard place. Lose and it's your own fault (Pirates, Royals). Win and it's an argument against you getting a break on finances (Rays, Twins, A's).

Forget the WS; that's mostly a crap shoot with three-tiered playoffs. How many games do the Yankees win every year? That's the issue. And, furthermore, is it realistic to foresee the Yankee organization NOT being competitive, well, ever? If everything goes down the crapper they'll still win 85 games.

We all like the Moneyball spirit of being smart and beating the odds. But look at the A's of the past few years. That front office is at least the equal of the Yankee front office, but they are not playing the same game.

Yes, poorer clubs can play it smart and win ... for a while. Then they lose their free agents and can't afford to sign other top free agents. The margin for error is ridiculously low. The NFL and NBA run circles around MLB in terms of providing small markets a chance to compete.

I just don't see the sport in having a handful of teams on a different financial level than everybody else. I think a salary cap is needed, but I would also favor a salary floor.

Yeah, aren't you sick of the Yankees winning the World Series every year?

I'm firmly against any salary cap of any kind, but this type of fallacial argument drives me nuts.

Responding to a request for a level playing field by saying, "If it wasn't fair we'd win every year" is bizarre and makes me wonder if being a fan of a team that is virtually guaranteed to make the playoffs every year has made people intellectually lazy.

How about subtraction by addition? Namely, open up the huge markets, specifically New York, Chicago, and Boston, to more teams. The Brooklyn Royals and the Queens Twins eventually would siphon off a lot of that surplus money that the Mets and Yankees use to remain dominant.

Alternatively, you could make the Yankees hire Bill Bavasi as General Manager.

Arguments against a salary cap carry more weight when they don't come from fans of top 3 payroll teams.

seriously?? what team is really affected by this signing, considering that the Yankees are paying more to revenue sharing than the Marlins are spending in salary, shouldn't the focus be on "why aren't they spending money" instead of concentrating on the Yankees who are doing everything in their opinion to win?

My team, (the Cardinals) are 11th in payroll while being in the 24th(optimsist assesment) best market, so that tells me the money is there to spend if you have non-corrupt ownership that wants to win. #### a salary cap, enact a salary floor that is dependent on a teams record (if you finish below .500 for two consecutive seasons and then don't improve by a minimum of 5 games, you must spend a certain amount on salary, also you must also spend a certain amount on draft bonuses etc. make the ####### crappy teams spend money, not whine about how an organization that wants to win spends their money, it's ####### silly worry about teams that want to win, while ignoring the teams that are actively trying not to win.

A team like Tampa Bay, stuck in the same division with the Yankees AND Red Sox will never have a shot at the playoffs without a salary cap!

It's hard for me to believe a rational person would ever use Tampa as an example of how the system "works". "Look, just suck for 10 years and maybe, just maybe, you can have a shot a the big boys! Nothing wrong here folks, move along!"

I mean, what day job could you have where ridiculous reasoning like this is a-ok?

If baseball were truly interested in competiveness then sure a salary cap would be best. But they are in this thing to make money, and the money flows better when the big market teams are good and this system helps make it happen.

Small market teams are between a rock and a hard place. Lose and it's your own fault (Pirates, Royals). Win and it's an argument against you getting a break on finances (Rays, Twins, A's).

Forget the WS; that's mostly a crap shoot with three-tiered playoffs. How many games do the Yankees win every year? That's the issue. And, furthermore, is it realistic to foresee the Yankee organization NOT being competitive, well, ever? If everything goes down the crapper they'll still win 85 games.

We all like the Moneyball spirit of being smart and beating the odds. But look at the A's of the past few years. That front office is at least the equal of the Yankee front office, but they are not playing the same game.

Yes, poorer clubs can play it smart and win ... for a while. Then they lose their free agents and can't afford to sign other top free agents. The margin for error is ridiculously low. The NFL and NBA run circles around MLB in terms of providing small markets a chance to compete.

I just don't see the sport in having a handful of teams on a different financial level than everybody else. I think a salary cap is needed, but I would also favor a salary floor.



I agree with a lot of this comment, but I'm still not a fan of a salary cap, heck I'm more or less a socialist but if the money is there then it makes no sense to force it to go to the teams profit instead of the workers who earn the owners the money. League wide revenue sharing that is fair and balanced should be the first goal, (and yes the Yankees should still make the most money having the largest market etc.) but at the same time the league should push for health among all it's teams (in our diamond mind league if a team performs poorly for a period of time, the league has the right to act in the best interest of the league, which is competency) I understand that it's sometimes tough to predict the future while maintaining a budget, but all teams should go into the season thinking about some type of positive performance(the fans need to imagine the pirates are a .500 team in spring training, and the yankees fans need to think they are prohibitive favorites for the world series)

Yeah, aren't you sick of the Yankees winning the World Series every year?

I get sick of them being in the playoffs every single year, and then the one year they miss they go batshit crazy and sign every player on the market.

How can small market teams hope to compete? A team like Tampa Bay, stuck in the same division with the Yankees AND Red Sox will never have a shot at the playoffs without a salary cap!

Oh give me a ####### break. Yeah, by being historically abysmal for 15 years they were able to accumulate so many high draft picks that even the most inept of idiots could have put together a strong team. There's a business model every fan wants.

If baseball were truly interested in competiveness then sure a salary cap would be best. But they are in this thing to make money, and the money flows better when the big market teams are good and this system helps make it happen

########, a salary cap has made a mockery of the other sports, where it's no longer about team loyalty or identifying with a favorite player, but instead about money management (the Rams were dominant for a while because their vp effectively wrote the salary cap rules, and the patriots eliminate any argument about 'competitiveness')

a salary cap is needed, like a fork to the eye. it's a dumb idea from the get go, and is clearly an example of people that don't understand the complexity of baseballs financial situation to propose. A salary cap doesn't work in the nfl or nba (regardless of what the uniformed morons claim--baseball is way more competitive) and considering the simplicity of those sports (oooh we don't need a minor league, instead the draft is really pretty much it) to think that more complex systems like mlb would benefit is ####### absurd.

How about subtraction by addition? Namely, open up the huge markets, specifically New York, Chicago, and Boston, to more teams. The Brooklyn Royals and the Queens Twins eventually would siphon off a lot of that surplus money that the Mets and Yankees use to remain dominant.

The Mets have made the playoffs one time in the last 8 years. Dominant? Hardly.

Any team that makes the playoffs will have nearly as good a shot of winning the WS as any other team that makes the playoffs, including the Yankees. I'd say that any team in the NL, if run properly, has a chance of making the playoffs, even the Pirates (with all due respect to that franchise.)

That said, I do think the Blue Jays, Orioles, and Rays have it the hardest. Sure, the Rays won the AL pennant last year but they had to suck for a decade before that. If anyone should complain, those teams should.

Very few sports in the world have teams that have equally good shots at winning titles. Baseball is actually reasonably just in that regard.

Yeah, by being historically abysmal for 15 years they were able to accumulate so many high draft picks that even the most inept of idiots couldn't have put together a strong team.

Yup, just look at the Pirates and Royals!

I get sick of them being in the playoffs every single year, and then the one year they miss they go batshit crazy and sign every player on the market.

one team, how about the Mets(3rd), Tigers(4th) Seattle(8th) and their payrolls vs tampa, Milwaukee, etc. Yes the teams with the higher payrolls compete more often than lower payrolls, but isn't that an argument for a salary floor over a salary cap. it's been proven time and again, that a high salary isn't a recipe for the post season, but that a low salary is almost always a recipe for non-competitveness.

Any team that makes the playoffs will have nearly as good a shot of winning the WS as any other team that makes the playoffs, including the Yankees. I'd say that any team in the NL, if run properly, has a chance of making the playoffs, even the Pirates (with all due respect to that franchise.)

agree 100%, final succes in the post season has very little to do with quality of team, it really bothers me when people argue that the yankees of recent years are inherently flawed compared to recent earlier teams, good luck for a few years is being used as evidence against normal luck. It helps being the best team in the post season (or as 2006 showed, dealing with idiots that think standings= quality of team) but it only goes so far, winning in the post season is as much luck as it is quality of team, and whenever any "expert" seriously predicts winners of the post season, they are fully allowed to be ridiculed for being among the stupidest people on the planet(yes keith law, the mets in three over the cards, glad you called that in a seven game series)

########, a salary cap has made a mockery of the other sports, where it's no longer about team loyalty or identifying with a favorite player, but instead about money management

So you are saying that baseball is about team loyalty and identifying with a favorite player and not about money management? Exactly what about today's game could give you that impression? Do you read your posts before you press 'Submit'?

Folks like to say that baseball has more parity because of the different champions but that's all due to the nature of the playoffs (essentially random, where as other sports actually seem to have the better teams win the playoffs). In truth baseball has largely the same teams in the playoffs every year. Then the coin flips begin.

Although this is not really related, I just wanted to say something:

Most of the regulars on this site don't seem to mind it when players take the biggest offers. Should we mind it if the owners run their businesses in a similiar fashion? Should we begrudge any owner who does this? I guess we could complain if they are getting public assistance but that should be more on the government than the owners.

How about subtraction by addition? Namely, open up the huge markets, specifically New York, Chicago, and Boston, to more teams. The Brooklyn Royals and the Queens Twins eventually would siphon off a lot of that surplus money that the Mets and Yankees use to remain dominant.

I really love this idea and would add Southern California. I see a team in Brooklyn within 10 years. There's no way the revenue sharing teams are going to keep supporting the Pirates and Royals when they can make more money (share less) by moving one of those to Brooklyn and another to Newark and another to Boston and another to Pasadena or something (OK that's four spots for two teams but you get the idea). A lump sum to the affected franchises seals the deal. All those Yankee fans who can no longer afford season tickets after years of support serve as poster children for this movement. Chicago seems OK as is.


Most of the regulars on this site don't seem to mind it when players take the biggest offers. Should we mind it if the owners run their businesses in a similiar fashion? Should we begrudge any owner who does this? I guess we could complain if they are getting public assistance but that should be more on the government than the owners.

If you're referring to owners who campaign for and receive government subsidies I don't begrudge that at all. It's on the government and in turn the public to stop it if they want. It is possible to do just that. LA football fans and Oakland baseball fans know this from personal experience.

I am not even arguing in favor of the salary cap. I am just arguing against stupid smug-ass posts that act like signing every player there is to ludicrous contracts is fine because they "don't win the WS every year." As if winning the division 200 years in a row and missing the playoffs only every 30 years means nothing.

As if winning the division 200 years in a row and missing the playoffs only every 30 years means nothing.

That's once and counting!

If you're referring to owners who campaign for and receive government subsidies I don't begrudge that at all. It's on the government and in turn the public to stop it if they want. It is possible to do just that. LA football fans and Oakland baseball fans know this from personal experience.

That, and not raising payroll even though they could. If, for example, if an owner could make 20 million with a 50 million payroll, should we be upset if he decides not to make 15 million with a 65 million payroll?

cap it! $424 million is insane.

The Padres can't afford more than $4 million for their HOF closer. Their franchise pitcher is deemed to expensive at $10 million. nuts, nuts nuts.

cap it!

Namely, open up the huge markets, specifically New York, Chicago, and Boston, to more teams.

Since when is Boston a big market?

There is no way that if an expansion team hit in Boston that it would have any success. People in Boston are Red Sox fans, not baseball fans.

That's the Padres' problem, not the Yankees'.

I love it when the BTF libertarian circle jerk (salary cap = communism) runs up against the BTF anti-Yankees circle jerk (Yankees = Evil). Makes for an entertaining thread.

As a Yankee fan, I only note that the Yankees are outnumbered 29 to 1 in any owner's meeting.

Me, I don't care one way or the other. I can see the argument on both sides. My instinct says to put in a salary cap, but if they don't, then CC, AJ and Tex are a consolation prize of sorts. I can live with that.

And hey, is Manny still available? The Yanks could use a good DH, not to mention a fresh straw to stir the drink.

How come when the Yankees did the exact same thing last off-season, spending almost as much money, no one raised an eyebrow? I hardly see how re-signing your own free agents is any different from signing other teams'.

I love it when the BTF libertarian circle jerk (salary cap = communism) runs up against the BTF anti-Yankees circle jerk (Yankees = Evil). Makes for an entertaining thread.

salary cap = union-busting, dude.

Most of the regulars on this site don't seem to mind it when players take the biggest offers. Should we mind it if the owners run their businesses in a similiar fashion? Should we begrudge any owner who does this?

1) Players play baseball. As discussed above, I rather enjoy baseball, and don't begrudge them their profits from playing it well. Owners own baseball teams. I have no particular feelings one way or the other about the ownership of baseball teams. It seems to be an idiot-proof job, with guaranteed profits, so even if I believed in any of that masters of the universe stuff, I'd see no reason to apply it to the business of baseball. So I do begrudge the owners their profits, especially when they pretend their profit-lusting and union-busting are done for the sake of the fan and the sake of the game.

2) Again, I'm not exactly opposed to some sort of payroll cap, but I don't trust management to install it.

Most of the regulars on this site don't seem to mind it when players take the biggest offers. Should we mind it if the owners run their businesses in a similiar fashion? Should we begrudge any owner who does this? I guess we could complain if they are getting public assistance but that should be more on the government than the owners.

I don't mind it, per se, but I do mind when someone--like Attanasio here--masks in the guise of "we need it to compete!" which is plainly untrue. That's ######## as much as Mike Hampton talking about the Denver school system was ########.

Do I begrudge Hampton his money? No, but I would've preferred he'd been honest about why he signed with the Rockies, though I understand why he wasn't. Same for Attanasio.

cap it! $424 million is insane.

The Padres can't afford more than $4 million for their HOF closer. Their franchise pitcher is deemed to expensive at $10 million. nuts, nuts nuts.

cap it!

Yes, baseball needs a salary cap because John Moores is getting divorced.

Owners own baseball teams. I have no particular feelings one way or the other about the ownership of baseball teams. It seems to be an idiot-proof job

May I introduce Mr. Vince Naimoli

Is San Diego a small market?

I don't mind it, per se, but I do mind when someone--like Attanasio here--masks in the guise of "we need it to compete!" which is plainly untrue.

Attanasio doesn't say the Brewers can't compete. He is quoted as saying

“At the rate the Yankees are going, I’m not sure anyone can compete with them,”

This is a Bloomberg news reporter. I don't trust that this reporter understood everything Attanasio was saying. For example, Attanasio could have meant that no teams can compete with the Yankees for FA, and I think that is plainly true.

Even if Attanasio meant that the Brewers couldn't compete with the Yankees, that's ok, because the Brewers aren't competing with the Yankees. In 2009, the Brewers competition is probably going to be a couple of NL East teams and maybe the Cardinals for the NL Wild Card team.

This hasn't been mentioned by any of the regular posters, but you know what?

The Yanks may well end-up having a smaller payroll this season than last year, EVEN if they sign Pettitte for $10MM (which is not entirely a given).

And as has been pointed out by J. Sherman on his blog, the Yanks may have acted how they did because next year's FA crop is pretty lackluster (i.e., the Yanks may well sit out next year's FA crop, while letting at least one of Matsui and Damon go, with the concomitant $13MM savings).

Getting back to the main argument of this thread, the Yanks have not paid $424MM to these players. They have committed that money to them, but Sabathia could opt-out, one of the players could retire (unlikely, but who knows) or (crossing fingers against it) one of the players could die or become incapacitated (again, crossing my fingers against it).

This is a Bloomberg news reporter. I don't trust that this reporter understood everything Attanasio was saying. For example, Attanasio could have meant that no teams can compete with the Yankees for FA, and I think that is plainly true.

The Yanks had been pretty quiet in the FA market in the last few years (Damon being the only recent non-Yankee top tier FA signing since Giambi in 2001-2002. Other signings, such as Pavano, Jaret Wright, Flash Gordon, Paul Quantrill or Kyle Farnsworth were clearly of a different sort).

That is also seldom mentioned.....

“At the rate the Yankees are going, I’m not sure anyone can compete with them,” Attanasio said in an e-mail.

I am so sick of seeing stuff like this. They were a third-place team last year despite the higher payroll and remain so until they actually win games in the upcoming season and put themselves ahead of everyone else. If you're going to ##### about this and make this argument then at least wait until after the damn season. If they've won 110 games and blown away the competition, THAT is the time to complain about teams being unable to compete.

I don't agree with the need for a salary crap, I believe in the need for better management among teams that keep finishing behind the Yankees. The real reason that the Red Sox and Yankees finished 1-2 in the division for the last decade before 2008 was because the other three teams were poorly run for most of that time. Speaking of tired arguments...

Oh give me a ####### break. Yeah, by being historically abysmal for 15 years they were able to accumulate so many high draft picks that even the most inept of idiots could have put together a strong team. There's a business model every fan wants.

For one thing, the Rays had one of the most inept of idiots running the team for a while and I can say with absolute conviction that they would never have won more than 83 games or so under Lamar. He had no idea how to put together a quality team. As for their current success, take a look at the roster and where each player came from. Yes, they benefitted from some high draft choices but a lot of the team was pieced together with intelligent free agent or trade moves as well as from some lower round draft picks. They didn't just stumble into the playoffs by having 10 first rounders on the team like some people seem to think.

I don't know enough about it; maybe one of our Europeans can fill it in. But I think relegation makes a lot of sense for teams that can't or won't compete at a major-league level. Send the franchise to the minors if they can't get their crap together. This'll punish the underachievers; you don't get big league revenue if you don't field a big-league team.

My instinct is that a salary cap would be an indirect, structural way to get revenge on the Yankees. I understand the passion and motivation, but I don't think blowing up a system because one actor is out of your control is any way to do this. Punish the actor - in this situation, if the Yankee way is seen by the league as unbalancing, they can all come together and smack Hank in the knuckles.

If MLB is OK with the Yankee spending, then I don't see why it needs to be remedied at all. Again, I understand the frustration of fans of other teams, but I don't think you kill a system because of a single "bad" actor.

So...all of you who were carping about how FOX got what they deserved for World Series viewership after pimping the Yankees, Red Sox, and Manny Dodgers, but you're against a salary cap?

This comment is correct:

..the one year they miss they go batshit crazy and sign every player on the market.

I'm not sure what to do about it. I do support being allowed to spend whatever, but the Yankees do in fact have more capital than any other team, and it appears to be a lot more. It's true that the Royals/Marlins could spend more money, but they really can't get to these levels, I don't think.

The NFL has a salary cap, and there are players who spend a long time in one city.

I love it when the BTF libertarian circle jerk (salary cap = communism) runs up against the BTF anti-Yankees circle jerk (Yankees = Evil). Makes for an entertaining thread.

salary cap = union-busting, dude.

And it makes it even more entertaining when the ghosts of Walter Reuther and Cesar Chavez are invoked in support of the cause of Derek Jeter and Mark Teixeira.

But since I'm a Yankee fan, I can live with it. I hope they sign Manny, too. Solidarity forever!

Here, Matt, just in case you've forgotten the words. There won't be a dry eye in the Yanks' clubhouse when they hear it.

Alternatively, you could make the Yankees hire Bill Bavasi as General Manager.

Fortunately, I did not have any coffee in my mouth at the time I read this.

Anything is better than the carnival of mediocrity that is the NFL.

For one thing, the Rays had one of the most inept of idiots running the team for a while and I can say with absolute conviction that they would never have won more than 83 games or so under Lamar. He had no idea how to put together a quality team. As for their current success, take a look at the roster and where each player came from. Yes, they benefitted from some high draft choices but a lot of the team was pieced together with intelligent free agent or trade moves as well as from some lower round draft picks. They didn't just stumble into the playoffs by having 10 first rounders on the team like some people seem to think.

Let's not forget the Rays are heavily subsidized by these same wicked Yankees; much easier to roll the dice when you know you needn't worry about generating enough revenue on your own to make payroll.

Baseball somehow survived for a full century without a team in Florida, and today we have two, both entirely subsidized by the successful teams in the league with absolutely no sign that either team will ever be able to forego their welfare payments and stand on their own. If a regional fanbase is simply uninterested in watching ballgames I can't see why the fan who does show enough enthusiasm to support their favorite teams should be forced to have their monies appropriated for the purported benefit of those who don't.

I could support a "salary cap", but only one that isn't simply a furtherance of Bolshevik Bud's mealy-mouthed attempts at enriching his billionaire cronies at the expense of profitable teams like the Yankees. Set the cap limit at, say, $25 million per team and I'd vigorously support the measure; the world would be a better place if even star baseball players had to take the occasional postseason job.

Anything is better than the carnival of mediocrity that is the NFL.

Are you kidding? There's been one fabulous game after the other on national TV for the past month, all with playoff implications. There are six or eight very good teams with a legitimate shot at going to the Super Bowl. The NFL postseason lineup this year, once the four cripple teams get knocked out in the first round, are going to leave this year's baseball playoffs in the dust.

And they won't be playing the Super Bowl at one f*ck*ng thirty in the morning, either.

It could be much worse. Look at the English Premiership, where the top 4 teams essentially use the rest as farm teams and no one outside the big 3 has won in ages. Soccer leagues in smaller European nations are generally even less competitive, with 1 or 2 teams that finish at the top every year and have a 10 to 1 or even 100 to 1 financial advantage over their competitors.

Let's not forget the Rays are heavily subsidized by these same wicked Yankees; much easier to roll the dice when you know you needn't worry about generating enough revenue on your own to make payroll.

Which is why I doubt most of these teams want a cap. I assume revenue sharing will go if there's a cap and who's going to vote themselves out of $30 mil a year?

Are you kidding? There's been one fabulous game after the other on national TV for the past month, all with playoff implications.

I think we've found our solution. Reduce the length of the baseball season to 16 games.

It could be much worse. Look at the English Premiership

I always reassure myself thusly; "It could be worse - it could be soccer."

seriously?? what team is really affected by this signing, considering that the Yankees are paying more to revenue sharing than the Marlins are spending in salary, shouldn't the focus be on "why aren't they spending money" instead of concentrating on the Yankees who are doing everything in their opinion to win?

My team, (the Cardinals) are 11th in payroll while being in the 24th(optimsist assesment) best market, so that tells me the money is there to spend if you have non-corrupt ownership that wants to win. #### a salary cap, enact a salary floor that is dependent on a teams record (if you finish below .500 for two consecutive seasons and then don't improve by a minimum of 5 games, you must spend a certain amount on salary, also you must also spend a certain amount on draft bonuses etc. make the ####### crappy teams spend money, not whine about how an organization that wants to win spends their money, it's ####### silly worry about teams that want to win, while ignoring the teams that are actively trying not to win.

The better question is "what do they have to spend it on?"

I'm not sure there is a "fair" way to do this that makes more sense then the status quo, but just about every franchise-altering free agent of the past ten years has chosen the big market teams. Is there a financial element here? Absolutely. But I think what is more important is competing every year. Look at guys who have been able to demand 90+ mil whilst switching teams that didn't join a NY-LA-CHI-BOS team (and it's a small list compared to the big club list): Zito, Carlos Lee, Hampton, Griffey (technically a trade but the new contract was basically a necessity to get it done), and ARod. Of the minority that did sign with those teams, you can explain some of them as signing with teams that were consistently in competiton for their division before they signed (SF and Houston, and even those are Top 10 markets). Only Hampton, Griffey and ARod really stand out, none of them finished their contracts with their team and only Griffey came particularly came close, only because nobody would assume his injury risk and dollars. The other two sulked their way out of unfavorable situations.

Thats unfair you say, what about guys who just sign up for big average value but not the total years? Say you want to expand the list to guys who were able to average 12 million as new signers, the list of guys who didn't end up on LA-NY-CHI-BOS teams is comparatively small again. Millwood, Clemens, Thome, Sexson, Delgado, Tejada, Beltre, Rowand, Magglio Ordonez, J.Guillen, Big Unit, C.Silva, Belle, Park, and I'm sure there are a few I missed but I think that cover most of it. Again, the ones that didn't sign with a big market/recent winning tradition team (I would count Seattle as one for most of these) are usually dealt to one of them before their contract is up (usually sulking about not competing) or have degenerated into someone so poor that the big market teams would not take a chance on them.

Compare that to the NY-LA-CHI-BOS list: Teixiera, Sabathia, Santana (technically a trade but the Mets had to give him a large extension), Hunter, Soriano, Beltran, Giambi, Manny, KRod, Clemens, Pedro, Burnett, Jason Schmidt, Drew, Guerrero, Matsui, Damon, Fukudome, Furcal (the first time), Mussina, Andruw Jones, Schilling, Wagner, Mo Vaughn, Shawn Green, again I'm sure I'm missing some.

The only two situations that are somewhat interesting to me in the first list are Ordonez and Big Unit. In both cases, the Diamondbacks and Tigers had spent on big name players the offseason previous (Jay Bell, Matt Williams, Ivan Rodriguez), to establish "credibility", so to speak. Big Unit was probably one of the biggest FA coups of all time, and I believe IIRC he lived in Arizona so that helped them out a lot. Detroit had an interesting little strategy where to rebuild the teams credibility from the disastrous 119 loss season they would spend on big name players, but these big name players were guys that the big market teams were all scared off of. Ordonez had the left knee condition and IRod was a catcher with a lot of wear and tear, which doesn't usually age well. And to get both of those players they had to overpay them immensely in relation to the rest of their bidders.

So my point here is that the whole "wah wah revenue sharing you guys should be spending that money" argument is nice, but it doesn't really mean much if you can't convince your developed franchise players to sign and stay on. The Royals I'm sure would've loved to sign Beltran to the contract the Mets gave him, but they were not able to because they were not competitive and Boras basically forced their hand by not negotiating with them. So instead they sign and overpay (theoretically) people like Gil Meche and Jose Guillen while everyone lambasts them for it. Or they light money on fire and give it to Kyle Farnsworth and everyone snarks at them. But if they don't spend the money, they are just cheap profit-seeking bastards who never intend to compete. If the Cardinals didn't have Albert Pujols and hadn't signed him to a VERY fair contract for them, where would they be?

Which isn't to say I'm for a salary cap, because all that would do is force players to play in situations that they didn't want to play in while the Yankees made 10 trades every offseason trying to get the best players they could. I think it's pretty clear which teams the current system favors, and I'm not sure that there is a fair remedy.

Arguments against a salary cap carry more weight when they don't come from fans of top 3 payroll teams.

They'll carry more weight if small market owners also start advocating a salary basement.

Also, Bud can easily fix the problem of big market teams buying their way into October by making the ALDS a best of three series, the ALCS a best of five and the WS a best of seven. Less certainty and a shorter playoff schedule so baseball has a chance to end in October rather than November.

Yes, poorer clubs can play it smart and win ... for a while. Then they lose their free agents and can't afford to sign other top free agents. The margin for error is ridiculously low. The NFL and NBA run circles around MLB in terms of providing small markets a chance to compete.

The NFL is a good example. The NBA? The league that has blatantly created 2 superteams that never lose on each coast? (And you know they'd love to have a third in New York if Lebron plays along).

Baseball right now has far better competitive balance than basketball despite the salary cap.

The NBA? The league that has blatantly created 2 superteams that never lose on each coast? (And you know they'd love to have a third in New York if Lebron plays along).

It was also the league where, for a long time, it was almost impossible to rebuild. At least now the rookie contracts are for 5 years. When it was three, a team couldn't even hold on to enough drafted players to rebuild that way.

I have no problem with the Yankees locking up guys well into their 30's with big money contracts. It's worked so well for them the past 8 years, hasn't it?

...the world would be a better place if even star baseball players had to take the occasional postseason job.

They could mow my lawn, if my lawn needed mowing in the offseason. OK, snow shoveling!

We all like the Moneyball spirit of being smart and beating the odds. But look at the A's of the past few years. That front office is at least the equal of the Yankee front office, but they are not playing the same game.

Define smart? The way the A's have handled marketing and their broadcasting, and how they want to sell fans on paying for tickets has hardly been smart.

If you're constantly telling your fans that the stadium is crap, they might actually believe you. If you are hard to watch on TV, or hear on radio, the numbers of those fans aren't going to increase. And while some fans only care about winning laundry, not everyone is that way. Billy Beane is by far the most well known person connected with the As. Some As fans certainly do support the team because of him, but not every fan decides to follow a team because the GM is "smart" or young or "progressive" or "enlightened".

Let's filter out the noise:
1) I don't really see more than one or two people arguing for a salary cap in this thread, so stop selectively engaging that.
2) No one is arguing for Harrison Bergeron, so let's kill that noise.
3) Talking about free market arguments is absolutely ludicrous when we are talking about a monopoly where the largest market teams use their veto power to demand to be undercompeted against.
4) Stop the intellectually bankrupt selective sampling arguments that would be mocked soundly in any other discussion on this board. These include: "The Yankees haven't won every year", "The Mets are in NY and suck!" "Boston is a small market team!" None of these remotely refute the idea that teams with larger earning potential can consistently outspend teams without that earning potential and there are major factors beyond just "running the franchise well".


Solutions:
Give large market teams like the New York teams a choice. Either open up all markets and split TV revenues or agree on a massive revenue sharing plan based on earning potential, not on actual earnings/attendance. Place minimum spending restrictions on franchises over a multi-year period where if they don't invest their revenue sharing funds plus a standard amount back into their franchise, they would have to return all of the revenue sharing proceeds plus interest and a penalty.

This would accomplish the following:
1)Prevent the dynamic where some teams (not just the Yankees) lock competition out of much larger markets, and sport a non-merit based competitive advantage.
2)Prevent owners from taking the revenue sharing money and just pocketing it.
3)Still allow a well run franchise to out compete its opponents.
4)Not penalize a team for expanding its profits by building its fan base.

Baseball somehow survived for a full century without a team in Florida, and today we have two, both entirely subsidized by the successful teams in the league with absolutely no sign that either team will ever be able to forego their welfare payments and stand on their own.

Yeah, maybe we should hold off on co-signing this fair and balanced assessment until we see how Tampa Bay reacts to their first winning team in franchise history.

They could mow my lawn, if my lawn needed mowing in the offseason. OK, snow shoveling!

The snow banks on the side of my driveway are already taller than I am. I highly approve of your idea.

Posts 57 and 63 are both very good.

Meh. The Yanks still are mighty weak up the middle:

• Posada's old, and their backup answer is — still? — Jose Molina, who might become their starter pretty readily.
• Robinson Cano doesn't seem to care that he is paid to play baseball; offensively, he has become quite pedestrian in a hurry.
• Derek Jeter is pretty miserable defensively — Bill James wrote "Derek Jeter could be the worst defensive shortstop of all time". He's now just average (102 OPS+) offensively.
• Assuming the Yankees get him — apparently a big if — Mike Cameron will make a nice upgrade in center, but not for long. In the meantime, Johnny Damon has no arm.

And then, of course, there's the rotation; even with Sabathia and Burnett, the dropoff between them and Wang — who lives a bit on the edge — is pretty substantial. The 2009 Yanks will be better than the 2008 Yanks, no doubt about it, but this is not a world-beating team.

Talking about free market arguments is absolutely ludicrous when we are talking about a monopoly where the largest market teams use their veto power to demand to be undercompeted against.

Is this a special plum given only to those big unfair plutocratic teams in the large markets, or is this a right granted to every single franchise in baseball regardless of size?

Further, is this a new development instituted recently, or has this been a part of the codified agreement of the major leagues since Monte Irvin was a young twerp?

TVerik fondly recalls Todd Palin's facial hair Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:09 AM (#3037605)
I don't know enough about it; maybe one of our Europeans can fill it in. But I think relegation makes a lot of sense for teams that can't or won't compete at a major-league level. Send the franchise to the minors if they can't get their crap together. This'll punish the underachievers; you don't get big league revenue if you don't field a big-league team.

I dunno, it's probably unworkable from many aspects. Imagine how a local host city is going to react if the team that they spent hundreds of millions building a new stadium for ends up getting relegated.

cardsfanboy's and E-X's ideas of a minimum spending limit are probably better.

And then, of course, there's the rotation; even with Sabathia and Burnett, the dropoff between them and Wang — who lives a bit on the edge — is pretty substantial.

Wang has been successfully living on the edge for four years. I'd say it's probably safe to assume that his edge is at a slightly different spot than that of most pitchers. He's also got a career ERA+ of 117, with surprisingly few unearned runs for a groudballer, which actually puts him ahead of Burnett, and that's before considering the relative durability of the two.

I agree with Eraser-X that the solution is more revenue sharing with what might be termed "Anti-Marlins" provisions.

I wanted to also chime in on the idea of another team in Boston. If you split Connecticut's population in half, which is approximately how the allegiance to the Red Sox and yankees goes, then there are 12 million people from whom the Red Sox can draw attendees in all of new england. And a lot of those 12 million people are pretty distant from Boston. You can have one healthy or two sickly teams in the city. You can't have two healthy teams. There's not the economic and population base for that.

A salary cap isn't "communism". The whining arguments favoring one make it sound like it is, but MLB is a business, not 30 businesses. The Yankees need someone to play, and it's in MLB's interest to have that team be competitive.

That said, I enjoy the way it is, with the poor underdogs representing all that is good and the evil juggernauts who never really win the day. Besides, it's good for baseball to have the "popular" teams be competitive. If that means they have to spend like crazy, so be it.

It's not like a salary cap prevents extreme prolonged suckage anyway. I can't think of any MLB team in relative worse shape than the Detroit Lions. The Royals will make the playoffs before they do.

I wanted to also chime in on the idea of another team in Boston. If you split Connecticut's population in half, which is approximately how the allegiance to the Red Sox and yankees goes, then there are 12 million people from whom the Red Sox can draw attendees in all of new england. And a lot of those 12 million people are pretty distant from Boston. You can have one healthy or two sickly teams in the city. You can't have two healthy teams. There's not the economic and population base for that.

If you put a second team in Boston, you'd have one healthy and one sickly team in the city. As someone noted recently, a lot of Boston fans aren't baseball fans, but Red Sox fans. A second team wouldn't draw away anyone from the Red Sox - it would be just like having the new Marlins North.

It's not like a salary cap prevents extreme prolonged suckage anyway. I can't think of any MLB team in relative worse shape than the Detroit Lions. The Royals will make the NFL playoffs before they do.

Fixed that for you - it's just an indication of how bad the Lions are.

Seriously, usually when an NFL team throws together a terrible season, it's because they lost a whole bunch of close games (6 points or less). The Lions have only had one withing 3 points, and a total of 3 within 6. Their average margin of loss is 16 points. That's just hilariously awful.

Why not put both New York teams, Boston, and the Chicago teams in the same division? Granted that would cause a few strokes among purists but it seems a good way to level the playing field.

Realignment based on geography and markets might look like this (Keeping the current 6 division format and 14/16 split)

AL Metro Division
Yankees
Mets
Cubs
White Sox
Red Sox

AL South
Washington
Baltimore
Atlanta
Florida
Tampa

AL West
Los Angeles of Anaheim
Seattle
Texas
Oakland

NL East
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Toronto
Detroit

NL Central
Cincinnati
Milwaukee
St Louis
Minnesota
Houston
Kansas City

NL West
Colorado
Arizona
San Diego
Los Angeles
San Francisco

A salary cap is needed, but also a minimum payroll, and the players can end up with the same percentage of revenues just spread out more equitably. Any team that receives revenue sharing should be required to spend all of it on MLB salaries, no more of the Florida Marlin owners enriching themselves at the revenue sharing trough.

NL East
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Toronto
Detroit

Given that Toronto doesn't really have anyone ready for DH right now, and the much reduced potential competition, I approve of your plan.

"The top three teams in the AL next year will be the Red Sox, Yankees, and Devil Rays,"

That may be the most likely occurrence, and many here might say that throwing in the Angels and making it a top 4 is almost a lock.

But it's still more likely than not that someone else surprises and throws the pecking order all out of whack.
That's what's so great about sports. We may think we know what will happen, but we keep getting surprised. The 2008 sports year hammered that home, over and over.

Baseball somehow survived for a full century without a team in Florida..

Baseball could survive without a team in NY as well. It wouldn't make as much money, but it'd survive.

Comments like this just perpetuate the jackass NY fan stereotype.

Maybe we should just contract MLB to the Mets and the Yankees, similar to the Globetrotters and the Generals.

MLB does need to look at the business models of the other three leagues. I realize it can't be the NFL due to only playing 8-10 home games a year (playoffs...), and I'd also argue it's more successful than NHL/NBA so maybe you don't want their exact model as well.

I think there's lots of good suggestions in this thread, but none which could ever come to fruition as the owners wouldn't cut off their gravy train.

The basic flaw is that one organization has the ability to spend this money, without fear of loss if the don't win it all. If the Royals or the Pirates went out and mortagaged the world to sign 3 of the top free agents in one off-season, then they got hurt or sucked, it might be the end of their franchise. As it is, the smarter business model for these teams is to get mid to low level talent, take the revenue sharing and laugh all the way to the bank. That's a flaw in the system as it does not encourage some teams to try and win. It might honestly be best to simply put in the win floor with the threat of contraction if you can't meet it.

A lump sum to the affected franchises seals the deal.

Not sure it does, actually.

Not penalize a team for expanding its profits by building its fan base.

So IOW, the White Sox would pay in as much as the Cubs and the Mets would pay in as much as the Yankees? As obviously fair and just as this seems to be, I'm not seeing it happening any time soon.

As for Attanasio, I wonder if he realizes that his team wouldn't have made the playoffs this past season if baseball had the increased revenue sharing and salary cap that he wants. Why would Cleveland have felt compelled to trade Sabbathia to the Brewers if they were getting a subsidy and paying artificially low salaries to their players?

regardless of what the uniformed morons claim--

#20 -- I think this is a great idea; put the morons in uniforms so we can more easily identify them. Brilliant.

Maybe instead of a cap the Yankees should just be forced to hire Matt Millen as GM. Or the Steinbrenner's should be forced to sell to the Ford's.

#20 -- I think this is a great idea; put the morons in uniforms so we can more easily identify them. Brilliant.

The Italians gave putting motons in uniform a shot in WWII for their high command, it ended badly.

Though I don't support a salary cap, I think Attanasio is correct when he observes that "[o]bviously, the 34 percent they kick into the revenue-sharing pool and the luxury taxes don’t affect them one whit.”

What Attanasio ignores (or doesn't realize), though, is that the Yankees don't really see the luxury tax -- at any level -- as a deterrent, as other teams do. Instead, they see the luxury tax as an additional cost they incur in signing top players. Considering that they can afford any player at virtually any price, the tax is simply money they know is being kicked back to the league.

Consider, for instance, the Bugatti Veyron -- one of the world's fastest production cars, with a price tag of $1.5 million. Would someone interested in getting a Veyron be deterred if the government imposed a tax that increased the price tag to $1.8 million? Of course not. If anything, having a larger price tag adds to the prestige.

paying artificially low salaries to their players?

Does this happen in the NFL? There is revenue sharing. Basically every team is at the cap on a yearly basis with a few exceptions based more on circumstances than the desire of any one owner to be cheap. And don't players in the NFL make more of a percentage of gross revenues than players in MLB?

The real difference in the NFL isn't the cap. It is revenue sharing and the lack of guaranteed contracts. NFL teams can get out of bad decisions or recover from injuries much easier than MLB teams. But when they get out of those deals they just go and spend the money on someone else.

I do think the NBA system does cause the top 5 to 10 superstars to be paid an artifically low salary, although that salary is still so high that it is hard to care that much. The NBA system though also tends to pay the 11th and 12th man on the bench (Do NBA teams carry 12 players?) an artificially inflated salary. So I guess the NBA is really the socialist system.

The real difference in the NFL isn't the cap. It is revenue sharing and the lack of guaranteed contracts. NFL teams can get out of bad decisions or recover from injuries much easier than MLB teams. But when they get out of those deals they just go and spend the money on someone else.

While it is true that the NFL has an easier time getting rid of players, that doesn't get rid of their obligations or even free up that much cash. After all, most of the big players get a significant percentage of their income from the signing bonuses, which the teams are forced to include against the cap over the total length of the contract. Even if a team cuts a player, they still have to cover that signing bonus.

(Do NBA teams carry 12 players?)

Technically, it's 12, but almost all teams stash a couple guys on the injury list, or whatever it's called.

While local revenues are shared at 34%, a lot of revenues, including some of the fastest growing and forward-looking, are shared at 100%. The national TV contract is huge and merchandising, internet, and foreign revenues are also shared at 100%.

Revenue-sharing, as currently designed, functions to decrease marginal value of players, not to correct any kind of market disparity. If revenue-sharing was actually based on correcting market disparity, it would be designed in a manner to ensure that a marginal win is worth the same in all cities.

While it is true that the NFL has an easier time getting rid of players, that doesn't get rid of their obligations or even free up that much cash. After all, most of the big players get a significant percentage of their income from the signing bonuses, which the teams are forced to include against the cap over the total length of the contract. Even if a team cuts a player, they still have to cover that signing bonus.

Depends on the contract structure. When a contracts is announced as $100M for a star QB, usually about $18M is guaranteed. When a contract is announces as $60M for a star defender, usually about $10M is guaranteed. Something like that anyway. The contract is usually structured with lower salaries in the earlier part of the deal. So after 3 years of a 5 year deal it becomes much easier to release a player and absorb the hit of the guaranteed, prorated bonus moving onto the current year's cap. Plus if a player is released after June 1 then the remaining guaranteed money can be spread over 2 years, not just the current year. In any case, it seems to provide NFL teams with more flexibility.

If you want parity, there's one pretty sure way to get it:

At the end of every year, put every player in the Majors in one big draft pool, and let teams choose them in the reverse order of their W-L record.

The truth is that since the handful of superstars would be spread over 30 teams instead of 5 or 6, they'd actually be quite affordable, even if they were paid at the rate of their existing contracts, since the succeeding rounds of the draft would get cheaper and cheaper.

And think of the excitement it might produce in Kansas City.

Of course, a few ideologues may object (smile), and Yankee and Red Sox fans might grumble a bit, but if you really want to generate fan interest and get parity, it's hard to think of a surer and faster way.

The truth is that since the handful of superstars would be spread over 30 teams instead of 5 or 6, they'd actually be quite affordable, even if they were paid at the rate of their existing contracts, since the succeeding rounds of the draft would get cheaper and cheaper.

Maybe so, but the Royals could still draft Humberto Quintero with their first pick as they don't want to pay Manny Ramirez.

Revenue-sharing, as currently designed, functions to decrease marginal value of players, not to correct any kind of market disparity. If revenue-sharing was actually based on correcting market disparity, it would be designed in a manner to ensure that a marginal win is worth the same in all cities.

Or the cost of a marginal win would be adjusted from team to team. To a certain extent that's how the luxury tax works on the Yankees, but it's not strong enough on the rich guys and the revenue is paid to the poor guys in the form of cash rather than as a subsidy. To borrow from Fred Garvin, I'm pretty sure Veyron would be happy if the federal government paid a $300,000 rebate to purchasers of those fancy cars.

Put the Marlins in New Jersey.

Of course, a few ideologues may object (smile), and Yankee and Red Sox fans might grumble a bit, but if you really want to generate fan interest and get parity, it's hard to think of a surer and faster way.

Right, because fans only root for the uniform, and never for the player.

And why would teams put money into player development?

And, as noted above, what's to keep an owner from drafting a cheap team just to cut a profit?

But yes, this plan would stick it to Yankee and Red Sox fans, so it must be good. It also works great in Strat-o-matic. Owners could just use the AI draft tool to select their team!

What'd I'd like to see is both a bump in the luxury tax if teams just flagrantly disregard it, like the Yankees are, to something like 50% every five years, and also, a soft salary basement of like $50MM; "soft" because while you can go below it if you wish, you get no benefits from the profit-sharing, so no building a bargain-basement team while you run off with the profit sharing.

We had a long discussion (or to be more accurate a long series of discussions) on RSB more than a decade ago about all of this.

Best I can tell large markets (as defined by Mike Jones' study -- the best look I've ever seen at effective market size) do in fact have a structural advantage. But it's not large -- something close to 3 wins (and it's probably smaller than it was in the past)

One factor in this is that while all teams derive broadly similar gains from making the playoffs and winning the World Series, a random win in worth more to the larger market teams (not a huge factor. Back in 2002 the difference between the Yankees and Royals was around $390,000. And you can't buy a win for anything like that) and thus have a greater incentive to avoid fielding a truly terrible team.

In the period 1995-2002 market size alone only explained 14% of the variation in opening day payroll. Market size in itself only explained about 24% of the variation in team revenue.

Also worth noting: There was about a 37% correlation between winning percentage and opening day payroll (adjusted for the strong upward trend). And about a 49% correlation between opening day payroll and the previous year's winning percentage.

Since when is Boston a big market?

Mike Jones has it at #4 (~55% above average). They've got ~100% of the 6th largest market plus chunks of other markets.

Yeah, Chicago and the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose markets are larger but they're shared. Philly is a little bigger too according to Neilsen, but the pieces of other markets push Boston past Philadelphia.

What'd I'd like to see is both a bump in the luxury tax if teams just flagrantly disregard it . . .

This is the kind of language I was referring to in #84. By saying a team "flagrantly disregards it" implies that it really isn't a tax, but a hard cap. That's not true.

Instead, while some teams view having to pay any tax as a deterrent -- including the Yankees -- the Yanks also understand it to be a cost of doing business. If there's a FA they really want, the tax isn't going to prevent them from signing him; instead, they'll simply pay the tax with the understanding that they are also contributing to the rest of the league as well.

Of course, a few ideologues may object (smile), and Yankee and Red Sox fans might grumble a bit, but if you really want to generate fan interest and get parity, it's hard to think of a surer and faster way.

Right, because fans only root for the uniform, and never for the player.

Yes, I'm sure that Washington Nats fans would cry all night about being able to upgrade from Ryan Zimmerman to Albert Pujols for the 2009 season.

And why would teams put money into player development?

And, as noted above, what's to keep an owner from drafting a cheap team just to cut a profit?

Since under a draft the payrolls would under normal circumstances be roughly similar, there would be little or no excuse for this. A team salary floor could be established.

But yes, this plan would stick it to Yankee and Red Sox fans, so it must be good. It also works great in Strat-o-matic. Owners could just use the AI draft tool to select their team!

In case you hadn't noticed it before, I'm a Yankee fan. And of course my whole proposal was tongue in cheek. For one thing, while the current crop of superstars would have their salaries grandfathered, it'd be hard to gauge the salaries of the younger and less established players with obvious superstar talent but no real track record. It might work in Cuba, though.

The large market soccer like premier ship model in post #75 has some merit, but what do you do with the L.A teams?

I think MLB should embrace the Yankees. I've read something like 1/3 of all team apparel sales worldwide ( which is shared 100%) is Yankee related. God knows how much of all shared revenue is Yankee derived. When they role into Toronto, they sell the joint out, virtually the only sell outs for the season ( sometimes the Red Sox fill the place as well). It's truly an event when they come to town.

No salary cap, put the Bronx Bombers in their own division, put them in the playoffs every year, let them barnstorm around the country playing everybody. This is what it's come to , do this, and most people should be happy.

If you want parity, there's one pretty sure way to get it:

At the end of every year, put every player in the Majors in one big draft pool, and let teams choose them in the reverse order of their W-L record.

I've long argued in favor of something similar. The stated purpose of all this "revenue sharing" and assorted transfers of wealth from those who earned it to those who did not is, after all, "fairness" and the pursuit of parity. It was never intended to punish a single team, like, say, the New York Yankees, only to prevent any team from any region from becoming too recurrent a presence in the World Series.

So we don't really need a "salary cap", since money is no guarantee of performance. No, we need a pure talent cap to prevent ballclubs from stockpiling more than their fair share of outstanding players.

For example, the Angels won 100 games this season, more than any other team in either league. Clearly their roster talent has given them an unfair advantage over rival franchises. So why not allow the worst team in the league to take any one player off the Angels' major- or minor league roster? Who needs Ervin Santana and his very reasonable contract more, some overstuffed fat cats like the Angels, or the young, rebuilding scrappers in Seattle?

We could expand the fairness to the leaders of each division, perhaps adding a "luxury tax" to those teams whose final margin of leadership over their second-place finishers was obnoxiously large. The Angels did win their division by over 20 games after all! Maybe Joe Saunders or Jered Weaver should go to a team that really needs their services as well.

Such overt strides towards true fairness would undoubtedly usher in a new Golden Age for baseball - only organizational ineptitude and lengthy periods of unfortunate luck could keep a franchise from competing with the elite teams, so unlike our current system today.