|
Post by PiratesBill on Nov 27, 2007 17:07:23 GMT -5
I like the Phillies idea.
|
|
|
Post by Athletics on Nov 28, 2007 7:50:38 GMT -5
A minimum salary cap would be counterproductive and impractical. There are many teams this year that would need to add $20 million or more and after looking at the free agent crop, I just don't see where they could spend that. If they cannot win the players that would both help their teams AND get them to the minimum, would it really help anyone if they spent $12 million on a toilet seat, as the government does? I actually run one of those teams and I know this type of spending won't make my team competitive.
|
|
|
Post by philly on Nov 28, 2007 10:09:24 GMT -5
my vote on any type of minimum or maximum roster salary limit is NO. my vote on an agreed upon revenue sharing plan is YES.
|
|
|
Post by Rich ExposBrewers on Nov 30, 2007 8:23:57 GMT -5
I also am leaning against a cap but do like the idea of revenue sharing so that any team over a level has to either get under the level with moves or has to kick some money into a pool that goes to teams under the level.
I would also agree that with the change in free agency payroll should change a bit as well leading to a lower growth in salaries. Maybe we should wait to see how free agency plays out.
If there is a cap, you can't have a decreasing one. I've never seen a cap like that.
|
|
|
Post by Da Commish on Nov 30, 2007 14:58:42 GMT -5
One more time on the "decreasing cap" issue...
IF we vote a cap, I was suggesting getting there on a gradual basis. TO HELP TEAMS. We don't have to do that. I don't get how this is being misunderstood. I was giving an example of how to get down to a hypothetical $80 million cap. Not a $95 million cap, etc. I was just throwing out numbers.
This is going to be a close vote, and if a cap is approved, we can just set it and forget it. I don't care.
Also, in the event that I was misunderstood on this other issue- by "salary exemption" I meant that a team over the cap would be allowed to void additional contracts at no penalty.
I'm very happy in one respect that this discussion has brought out so many opinions. I also think everyone needs to take a step back and be a little more objective. We are bordering on some knee-jerk responses, and i'd like everyone to read things through a bit more, not get defensive, and please do not think any of these ballot measures a set out "to get you."
Nothing has gotten personal, and that is good. Let's keep it that way.
|
|
Texas
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by Texas on Nov 30, 2007 15:05:00 GMT -5
I've read a lot of these posts about the salary cap, and it seems like the only ones talking are the top spenders. Okay, Oakland and Florida have the same owner, but let's be real, is it any surprise the big spenders do not want a cap?
I think a cap would be a positive addition to the league. It would only be a hardship on a few teams for a short period of time.
Just because there is no cap in MLB does not have any bearing on this vote.
|
|
|
Post by ChicagoCubs on Nov 30, 2007 15:41:27 GMT -5
well, i will now throw my two cents into this:
At first, i did not like the idea of a cap, simply because i did not understand the salary exemptions. I was under the impression that if we cut players with big salaries, we would be screwed even WORSE than lowering our payroll. We would have to live with the money situation created by it, citing my 1984 championship year for when i acquired Andre Dawson. Stipulations of the trade were i ALSO take Larry Dierker, whom at the time, didnt realize how bad he was becoming, and had a $10 mil salary our something like that. I released him with 3-4 yrs left on the deal and lost $41 mil in my championship year! So i was worried about that aspect, but now that we are proposing these exemptions, i dont think a cap would be that bad for the game really. This is not MLB by any means(as evident we can youth players, and steroid them up), so i dont think that should factor into this vote that MLB doesnt have a cap. The players in this game are asking for outrageous amounts of money, and the only ones seeming to spend are the big spenders. Me included, but i hate it! Yes, it is like MLB in that respect that players are getting outrageous salaries now. But i think Mark hit it on the head that this could be player driven, and money driven. If we lower those amounts, it could make a difference, we dont know until we try
But on the other side, i do like the revenue sharing as well, where we set a luxury tax total, and then if you over that, you pay into that tax and that is spread across the smaller market teams. I am currently running the Twins right now, so I am looking at both sides of the coin here, not just the Cubs interests. Either way, i like both ideas, and will continue to monitor this board to help me make a better informed decision before voting...
everyone has a lot of good ideas, and that part is good for the future of this league.
Oh and the part about running out of "future" for the league. I wouldnt mind just starting over from scratch, in 1978 with all the original rosters from then(I dont know how that affects the owners of Florida and Colorado). I came into this league, in the 1979 season. I have been simply amazed by how far this league has come in i think around 5-6 years(not sure of the time frame mark) but i simply love it, as it gives me something to do while at work...hhahahaha
Keep the opinions coming
Shane-Cubs/Twins
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Front Office on Nov 30, 2007 16:34:39 GMT -5
I like what Shane is saying. If the teams over the cap get a few extra voided contracts, that's not such a bad thing.
I think a hard cap works best because everyone is on the same level. You could take it a step further and equallize all the team markets.
|
|
|
Post by Da Commish on Dec 1, 2007 11:26:44 GMT -5
Just a reminder that I need your votes by noon Sunday on all three ballot measures:
1. Yes -or- No Reduce team cash maximum to $15 million.
2. Yes -or- No Implement a salary cap (amount TBD)
3. Yes -or- No Reduce National TV deal from $25 million to $15 million.
|
|
|
Post by gerrygeil on Dec 18, 2007 21:07:07 GMT -5
The Tigers have the lowest payroll and they are my team. I admit, they are horrible but are improving... But, it is hard to add payroll when few players are willing to come play for your team. With that being said, the reason I prefer to play internet baseball rather than follow the real thing anymore is this:
1. It seems like the same teams compete for the playoffs every year (sometimes they don't ways make it, but they are competing regularly) 2. Small market teams can't compete for marquette players. Let's face there were only 4 franchises that might have been able to afford the ridiculous deal that A-Rod received. 3. Drugs - see mitchell report
With that being said. I like the IBF but disagree with a few things that are currently in practice.
1. Reserved Rights - franchises that don't draft well have no realistic shot at getting better if the top players are scarfed up prior to the bad teams from the prior year getting a shot at them. I have heard "historical rosters" thrown out there, but we aren't replaying history, we are hopefully changing our franchise's history for the better. 2. Bonus Pick - Why does a team get a bonus pick and another first rounder, Atlanta gets two great prospects this year out of sheer luck and a rule. I see the logic of teams intentionally doing poorly the season before to get a shot at a certain prospect, but having a losing season really impacts a franchise! 3. No cap, we had some 2.5 star players getting paid big bucks through free agency. New owners of struggling franchises can't compete with this type of free spending by the established clubs (don't get me wrong, I have a large amout of respect for each of those franchises and hope to be considered in the same breath as Seattle) But, big market equals more revenue anyway you cut it. A cap would make things more competitive for all franchises.
Just my two cents...
|
|
|
Post by NYYankees on Dec 21, 2007 15:11:18 GMT -5
I just wanted to chime in on some of your disagreements.
Reserved Rights--I am and will continue to be a big fan of reserved rights. I think it might be a good idea to revise the total system some, but I like the idea in principle. In the long run I think it evens out as far as the benefit to everyone, although some teams to benefit more than some others.
Bonus Pick-- I was not a fan of the bonus pick in the beginning. Now that it has been implemented I feel we need to continue with it in order to give all teams a crack at it. I know everyone would not get it before all was said and done, but it seems fairer than discontinuing it outright. I do think we might look at a rule where you could not use the bonus pick and reserved rights in the same season. Not to pick on the Braves, but they really lucked out this year. Two great prospects, and they landed Roger Clemens by just agreeing not to draft someone.
Salary Cap--I know I have beat this into the ground, but I am against it. Yes average players are getting over paid, but will a cap fix this? Probably not. I think we saw in free agency this year that even a drop in TV revenue did not. And as I always point out the game is fairly fair on the ability to make a big market team have the revenue of a small one and a small market team become a big one.
|
|