|
  Follow us as each week as our best writers from around the Bloguin Network take aim at each other and square off on anything and everything baseball from "who was better, Mays or Mantle" to "Should MLB have a salary cap?"
Pick a side and agree or disagree. Take part in the debate by posting a comment giving your own opinion. There are no holds barred and nothing is held back in the "The Great Bloguin Baseball Debate."
Today's Debaters are:
Danny Hobrock, Around the Horn Baseball
Larry Granillo, Wezen-ball.com
Today's Topic is: Should MLB have a Salary Cap?
Editors Note: Even with steroids at the forefront, there has been perhaps no bigger topic debated by baseball fans across the country these past few years than that of the prospects for a MLB Salary Cap.
While it's virtually universally agreed upon that a Salary Cap will never be put in place because the MLBPA will never allow it as part of its CBA, that doesn't stop supporters of a cap (especially those from small market teams) from lobbying for it.
There are legitimate arguments for both sides and more than anything, that's what fuels the debate. We've taken our own poll here at Around the Horn Baseball, and as of the posting of this article, almost 1,300 votes have been cast with about 79% of the voters in favor of a Salary Cap or something similar. (You can vote yourself in the right sidebar).
With those thoughts as the backdrop, let's get on with it as Larry Granillo and Danny Hobrock roll up their sleeves and delve into the Salary Cap issue in this edition of The Great Bloguin Baseball Debate.
 MLB SHOULD have a Salary Cap
By Danny Hobrock, Around the Horn Baseball: Danny is a sports journalist primarily covering college football and professional baseball. His work for Around the Horn Baseball and Xtra Point Football has garnered national attention and is critically acclaimed. Danny is the former editor of a political and current events website and the current editor of college football content for Xtra Point Football.
Arguing in favor of a salary cap is an almost unwinnable position. Not because baseball doesn't need one, but because it's unlikely that it'll ever come to fruition in the near or distant future. Still, that doesn't change the fact that baseball should implement a salary cap to create parity, improve the fairness of the game and draw in smaller market fans.
A salary cap would not be the end to the free market as we know it
I can already hear the screaming: "This is America!!!" "Commie!!!" "Free market!!" "Random anti-socialism remark!!!"
Proponents of the free market argument point out that an owner who wants to pay Barry Zito $126 million over 7 years should damn well be allowed to do so. It's their right as an American citizen. They argue that there should be no limit to the amount of money a team can spend on a player's salary in our free market society.
But competition laws have been in existence since Roman times. In the United States, anti-trust laws work to preserve marketplace competition. Baseball, of course, is for some reason exempt from antitrust laws because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1922 that baseball was not an interstate affair and that traveling from one state to another was "a mere incidence, and not the essential thing," according to Justice Oliver Holmes, Jr. Therefore, it was ruled that baseball is exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1914. Courts have upheld the decision since the ruling.
The basic idea behind the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1914 was to prevent unfair business acts that create an unfair marketplace such as monopolizing. Not that any team has created a monopoly in MLB, not even the Yankees. There is a clear disparity between the 30 teams.
And with such a large disparity comes unfair advantages for big spenders.
Forbes' review of Major League Baseball in April of 2009 found that team values increased overall by an average of 1%, overall league revenue increased 5.5% and operating income rose by 1.8% the previous year. It also found that "overall results are skewed by a handful of teams with great stadiums and cable television deals. Business is tough: Ten franchises saw their values decline during the past year, the most since 2004, and many teams are having a more difficult time selling premium seating, sponsorships and meeting debt obligations because of the bad economy. The net result is a widening gap between the teams at the top and the ones at the bottom."
With smaller value, less ticket sales, smaller television audiences and, therefore, less sponsorship and advertising revenue, "teams at the bottom" cannot afford to pay a player like the Yankees or Red Sox.
Neil deMause, in Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game is Wrong, brings up an interesting point. From a business standpoint, a team will not pay a player more money than they think he will bring in terms of ticket sales, concessions, souvenirs, etc. In a small market like Kansas City or Milwaukee, an Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, C.C. Sabathia, etc. will not be able to bring in as much money as they would in New York, Boston, Los Angeles and other large markets simply because of the size of the market. For smaller market teams, it just doesn't make much sense to buy players the way large market teams do.
MLB lacks parity
 In 2009 the Yankees had an opening day payroll $201,449,189 according to a list created by USAToday.com. They won the World Series.
Of course, as we all know, big spending does not necessarily translate into championships.
The next biggest spender, according to the list, was their New York counterpart over in Queens. The Mets opened their 2009 season with a payroll of $149,373,987. The Mets finished 2009 in 4th place in the NL East with a 70-92 record. But just because the Mets cannot effectively spend their money doesn't mean that there isn't a trend between spending big and making the postseason.
Of the teams with the 10 highest payrolls, half made the postseason. (Detroit, 5th highest payroll, finished 1 game behind Minnesota, 24th highest payroll, in the AL Central and missed the playoffs.)
Only one team among the 10 lowest payrolls made the postseason in 2009 (Minnesota).
Consider there's eight playoff teams and only two came from the bottom half of the salary list (25%) and six came from the top half (75%) and there's a clear trend here. But it's hard to come to a conclusion by examining just one season.
So let's go back to 1995 before team payrolls reached even $50 million. This was the year the DVD was first announced and when eBay first hit the Internet. MLB teams played 144 games in 1995 instead of 162 because of the carryover from 1994's strike, but it's enough to work with. It was also the first year of the extended 8 team playoff, not counting 1981's strike shortened season, which gives us stability in our sample size.
That gives us a nice round 15 seasons to work with and 120 playoff teams overall. 73 of the 120 playoff teams had team payrolls at the beginning of the season in the top 10 of the league. That's roughly 61% of all playoff teams. 93 of the 120 had team payrolls at the beginning of the season in the top half of the league. That's 77.5% of all playoff teams.
Of our 15 year sample size, 14 out of the 15 World Series Champions had a team salary at the beginning of the season that ranked in the top half of all teams. The lone exception was the 2003 Florida Marlins who, with a team salary of $48,750,000, ranked 25th on the list. 10 of the 15 WS Champs ranked in the top 10 in team salary, while 8 of the 15 WS Champs ranked in the top 5.
You call that parity?
Can teams buy championships?
 The success of smaller market teams in recent years has added fuel to the anti-salary cap side. The Devil Rays, Rockies and Marlins have all made World Series appearances (Florida won) last decade despite team payrolls in the bottom half of the league.
Similarly, the lack of success by big spenders like the Mets and inconsistent success of teams like the Cubs and Mariners has also lent support to the anti-salary cap side.
If you don't count the Yankees, teams who won the World Series increased their payroll by an average of +16.28% from the previous year. The Marlins increased their payroll by 58.76% between 1996 and their world championship year of 1997, while the then-Anaheim Angels increased payroll by 29.30% from 2001 to their world championship year of 2002.
Upon entering the league in 1998, the Arizona Diamondbacks quickly catapulted into the ranks of top ten team payrolls from 1999 to 2003, finishing with a winning record each season, making the playoffs in three of the five seasons and winning the 2001 World Series. Since falling out of the top ten team payrolls they've finished with a losing record in four of six seasons and made the playoffs just once.
Changing Winds?
The Pittsburgh Pirates and the Kansas City Royals have finished in the bottom ten of team payrolls in all but two years of our 15 season sample (Pittsburgh had the 19th highest team payroll in 2003 and the 18th highest in 2001). They have not made the playoffs since the postseason was extended to eight teams.
The Tampa Bay Devil Rays (now just the Rays) entered the league the same year as the Diamondbacks and have found themselves in the bottom ten of team payrolls in every year but two. Their brief money spending efforts did them little good in 2000 (10th highest payroll) and 2001 (19th highest payroll) and they did not post a winning record until 2008 when they went to the World Series with the second lowest payroll in the MLB.
The Florida Marlins are constantly looked at as a low payroll team who has translated thriftiness into success, or at least winning records. The Marlins have had the lowest team payroll for the last two seasons, but have managed a winning record in both years and even competed for the postseason.
With a salary cap in place, teams would take the approach of the Marlins and Rays more often in developing players in their farm systems instead of relying on free agency and trades.
Take the NFL. Free agency and trading is not dead, but teams rely more on building through the draft than in the MLB and there is much greater parity in the league. It would be interesting to see how some teams fare without the option to simply outbid their competition for top tier talent.
Small Market Crowds
One of the obvious benefits and most argued points among salary cap supporters is the impact it would likely have on small market teams. With greater parity, clubs like the Marlins, Royals, A's, Rays, etc. would theoretically win more games and have a greater chance of making the postseason. Of course, factors such as scouting, development, coaching and management would also play a role.
More wins and postseason appearances would then theoretically bring more fans to the ballpark, increasing revenues for small market clubs. That's not even mentioning the added revenue that a postseason appearance would bring.
One example of the correlation between postseason appearances and attendance comes from the New York Yankees. The capacity of old Yankee Stadium was 57,545 in 1980 and stayed that way through 2007. During the Yankees' 13 year playoff drought from 1982 to 1994, average attendance was 26,892 per game. (1994 was the strike-shortened season and the Yankees were on their way to making the postseason before the strike.) During their 13 year playoff streak from 1995 to 2007, average attendance was 40,572.
Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Dodgers and other large market teams have a geographic advantage over small market clubs in terms of fan base. A strong fan base and park attendance brings in revenue from ticket sales, concessions, souvenirs, etc.
Last year, not one of the teams that ranked in the bottom half of the attendance report made the playoffs. All eight teams came from the top half of the report. A salary cap would lessen the gap between teams in terms of on-the-field talent and overall team value, which would theoretically further reduce the disparity in talent.
Closing Statement
As we sit now, some teams just cannot compete with the Yankees and Red Sox of the league. When small market teams draft well and develop players into league leaders and perennial all-stars, they are swept away by big market teams.
Back to the Marlins. In 2008, the Marlins signed superstar Hanley Ramirez to a 6 year $70 million contract extension through 2014. But consider how much of a rarity that is for a team who has seen so many players they drafted, brought up and/or developed early in their career fall to free agency or traded away. In no particular order: Trevor Hoffman, Rob Nenn, Livan Hernandez, Edgar Renteria, Charles Johnson, Brad Penny, Derrek Lee, A.J. Burnett, Josh Beckett, Miguel Cabrera, Dontrelle Willis, etc.
Other teams have lost as many players, but most big market teams don't have to jettison their best players for "business reasons".
Some teams would choose not to take advantage of the cap and would open the season with a team payroll of far less than what they are allowed. But a salary cap would create the opportunity for teams to compete and would be a huge first step in preventing big market teams from creating an unfair marketplace. - Danny Hobrock, Around the Horn Baseball
 MLB SHOULD NOT have a Salary Cap
By Larry Granillo, Wezen-ball.com: "Written by a devoted fan of the game, Wezen-Ball.com uses some do-it-yourself statistical analysis and various contemporary accounts (including newspapers and magazines) to look at the game of baseball, both past and present - and, whenever possible, at where the two meet. The occasional off-the-wall post is not unheard of."
In July 2008, Brewers GM Doug Melvin rolled the dice and traded the club's top prospect, Matt LaPorta, to the Indians for ace and impending-free agent CC Sabathia. The gamble paid off, and the Brewers were able to ride CC to the Wild Card berth and their first trip to the playoffs in over 25 years. The Brewers lost in the first round to the eventual-World Champions, but their goal of making the playoffs had been met. It was an exciting summer to be a Brewers fan.
But we knew it couldn't last. With CC's impending free agency, there was very little hope that the Brewers would be able to lock him up. Sure, there were the wide-eyed optimists who tried to convince themselves that the playoff run, the fun-loving group of guys, and CC's natural affinity for a smaller market would push him to stay in Milwaukee, but they were certainly the exception. It was pretty widely accepted, in Milwaukee and around the country, that the Bewers would have no chance at signing the ace. When he finally did file for free agency, the Brewers offered the young stud a five-year, $100 million contract. He would eventually accept a seven year, $160 million contract, with a very favorable opt-out clause, from the Yankees. As many said, the Brewers never had a chance. Their $100 million offer was so large for them - and so small compared to the Yanks' offer - that consensus seems to be that it was merely a token offer from the Brewers. (In fact, owner Mark Attanasio is still having to defend himself against such claims today.)
The Brewers face a similar situation next year, when Prince Fielder becomes eligible for free agency. In the 2008 off-season, he and the club reached an $18 million agreement that would keep him out of arbitration for two years. That contract runs out this year, and he will face arbitration for the first and only time this winter - unless a deal can be reached. Seeing as how Prince is a Scott Boras client, and considering the big dollars that he is likely to receive (think Mark Teixeira or Matt Holliday money), it seems all but certain that he will be wearing a different uniform in 2012. The Brewers, then, will have to make a decision on what to do with Prince in the next two years: ride him and his MVP-caliber bat all the way to free agency and hope for the playoffs; trade him sometime in 2011, before he reaches free agency; or trade him even sooner, in 2010, when his contract situation might garner the club more value. I'm already on record about how I would treat this situation.
There are many, though, especially in a "small market" like Milwaukee, who seem to think that a salary cap would solve this problem. When everyone is on a level-playing field with what they can offer a player, then the huge advantages enjoyed by a team like the Yankees will disappear and players like Prince will be more inclined to stay with the "small market" club he grew up in.That, however, is just not so. A salary cap would not fix this, or similar situations, and would not be baseball's magic potion of parity.
Where do you set the cap?
In 2009, the median salary level among the 30 MLB teams was $81 million. The Brewers payroll for the year topped out at $80.2 million. And that was a tight $80.2 million, even after back-to-back years of 3-million-plus attendance. The Brewers owner, Mark Attanassio, is already fretting about a possible $85 or $90 million payroll this year. How low, then, would the salary cap have to be set in order for the Brewers to have room for Prince in their budget?
A sensible proposal might be to use the current median salary as the cap limit. If that were the case, the Brewers would already be at their cap, even before giving Prince a shiny, new contract. A higher cap would do nothing for a team like the Brewers since they have no extra money to spend, and a lower cap seems extremely unlikely since it would so unevenly hinder the larger market teams. It would take some sort of concession to the big city clubs, like the ability to go beyond the cap through penalty of luxury tax or something, for that to happen. If that's instituted, then the salary cap will mean very little for the "small market" teams.
Say, for example, that the cap was set at $90 million - high enough that it allows the Brewers to offer Prince a respectable contract while not increasing their payroll a large amount. If that $90 million figure is coupled with a luxury tax, then how would a team like the Brewers be able to compete with the Yankees? A dollar-for-dollar luxury tax (like the NBA's) would effectively wipe out the advantages "small market" clubs gain. In the $90 million proposal above, it would only take the Yankees an additional $55 million in above-cap contracts to get them to their current level. That additional $55 million - two-thirds more than the initial cap - would make a huge difference in this hypothetical world. Teams without those kind of advantages would be back to where they are today, competing on an "unfair ground" with the big market clubs.
But it's not like a salary cap would ever put them on completely fair ground to begin with...
Higher salaries are not the only advantage "large market" teams enjoy
Let's pretend for a moment that the league can come up with some cap level that is reachable by all teams, and that all thirty owners actually start spending the money to reach it. Will the league somehow become competitively balanced overnight? Will the Kansas City's and Milwaukee's and San Diego's of the league all of a sudden gain the power to lure top-level free agents away from the big cities? Of course not. These "small market" clubs, in this hypothetical world, may have as much money to offer as their "large market" counterparts, but that doesn't mean that free agents will see the cities as equal.
Take Johnny Damon, for example. If that $7 million offer that he signed with the Tigers last month had been matched by the Mets or Yankees or Dodgers or Cubs - at the time he agreed to it, of course (we all know how badly he screwed up his initial negotiations) - there is no chance that he would have accepted Detroit's offer. It was even reported as such in the week or so leading to the announcement, with reports saying that Damon's wife "would prefer him to play in a more cosmopolitan city than Detroit".
The fact of the matter is, the "large market" teams have inherent advantages over "small market" teams that go beyond their payroll abilities. Being able to associate yourself with the Yankees or Cubs is much more valuable, in terms of image, appearance fees, endorsements, etc, than being able to associate yourself with, say, the Royals or Expos (just ask Andre Dawson). There's also the confidence that the player might feel in the owner's willingness to keep the payroll up and in the fans' willingness to come to games and buy stuff. Plus, players just might prefer to live in a bustling city like New York instead of Minneapolis.
These are real concerns that free agents will always have, and there is very little that smaller market teams can do about them. Even worse, in a world where the Royals and Yankees can offer identical contracts to top-notch free agents, these lesser details might grow more important. Why would anyone choose Kansas City over New York, all else being equal?
But, you say, at least it'll keep the ticket prices down. Not so fast...
There is no guarantee that ticket/concession/merchandise prices will go down
The hope is that, with a salary cap in place, teams will no longer be able to raise their payroll to exorbitant heights and that, in turn, this will keep ticket prices down. After all, if salaries are controlled from year to year, then teams will no longer be able to claim a sudden increase in payroll as a justification for a price hike. In this ideal world, all price increases will be small and predictable.
But that's just silly. First of all, payroll is only one part of the team's expenses that it hopes to offset by ticket prices. If any of the other costs of the ballclub go up - paying off debt, stadium renovation, travel costs, etc - then ticket prices would also need to be raised. But even if those could be held steady, ticket prices never will.
If a salary cap was passed this year, and the Yankees were forced to lower their payroll to $100 million immediately, would they also slash their seat prices in half? Of course not. Not only would that lower the value and prestige of seats in the New Yankee Stadium in the public's eyes - and yes, any time somethings price is halved, that's the impression it gives the public - but it would also go counter to the laws of supply and demand. If fans are willing to pay the current prices for tickets, why in the world would the team suddenly lower their prices? What incentive would they have? Also, smaller market clubs like the Brewers, who are already pushing the boundaries of their payroll, wouldn't even be able to lower prices without compromising their ability to pay those salaries.
Ticket prices are bound to go up, and even a salary cap won't prevent that.
A salary cap is no panacea
 The Brewers were a bad team for a long time. Before their 83-79 record in 2007, they hadn't had a winning season since 1992. In 2002, when they finished the season 56-106, the contraction talk that was bandied about that year almost certainly would have fallen on them if not for their close ties to Bud Selig. This was a franchise that was not in good shape. But their fortunes changed, and it wasn't because they suddenly found Scrooge McDuck's money pit. Instead, they became a competitive franchise through good scouting (thanks to Jack Zdureinek), good drafting (also thanks to Daddy Warbucks), good trading and good signings (thanks to the Mustache, Doug Melvin). They drafted Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun in the first round; they traded Scott Podsednik, Carlos Lee, and Francisco Cordero at their peaks; and they signed the likes of Mike Cameron to respectable contracts. Nothing about these moves scream "sexy", but they were all valuable and they were all wise. And moves like these are why the people of Milwaukee have reason to hope for October baseball again.
The Brewers aren't even the best example of this. The Rays made it to the World Series only two years ago after toiling at the bottom of the league, in both wins and salary, for its entire existence. In both 2005 and 2006, the two World Series participants were both middle-of-the-road payroll teams. The Marlins won the World Series in 2003 with one of the lowest payrolls in the league. Anyone saying that it takes big money to win in today's game is just wrong.
It is true that maintaining a winning team is still hard for the smaller market, smaller payroll teams, but that doesn't mean a salary cap is in order. For the reasons listed above - inherent, non-payroll advantages for big city teams and limited payrolls that would keep teams from even reaching the cap figure to begin with - there's no legitimate reason to believe that a salary cap would make a difference. And besides, who ever said that winning should be easy?
There are many other reasons to be wary of implementing a salary cap. I don't think I have to re-hash the arguments that it's unfair to keep players from earning their full, open-market worth, particularly when the difference is pocketed by the owners. And I don't think anyone needs reminding that a large payroll does not necessarily buy in-season success or that everyday occurrences, like injuries, can lead even the best-laid plans astray. These are the typical arguments given in opposition to a proposed salary cap. While I do agree with them, I think the reasons above are even more important.
There is nothing inherent about a salary cap that will guarantee parity or a level-playing field. Exploits will be found and used. When millions upon millions of dollars are at stake, you can pretty much guarantee that. Major League Baseball would be wise not to adopt this idea, and fans of "small market" teams would be wise to encourage their teams to invest in that which does win ballgames: a smart front-office that knows how to get the right players. Until we try that experiment for a few years with all 30 teams, ideas like "salary caps" need to be ignored. - Larry Granillo, Wezen-ball.com
For more in depth Salary Cap coverage, please see the following:
- MLB Salary Cap & Salary Floor; Would They Really Help?
- There has to be a better way to do this....
- MLB franchise owners are rooting for the Yankees to buy a 27th Championship
For a complete archived list of all our debates please visit "The Great Bloguin Baseball Debate" HOME PAGE.
If you haven't voted in our poll on the site yet please do so. We are trying to get a feel for how our readers are looking at the game of MLB so we can write about things they want to hear. The poll question is, "Do you think that MLB should have a salary cap or something similar?"
Have a Fantasy Football or Rotisserie baseball question? Want to know who to pick up, who to activate and who the hot prospects are? Ask Dr. Roto. Let Dr. Roto guide your team to a league championship.
 
 |
Bloguin is the revolutionary blog network specifically focused on helping bloggers get the most out of their websites. We're currently working on building a large network of online communities and hope to expand our blogging coverage to include a wide range of topics. 
The Bloguin Network allows advertisers to promote their products and services to our ever-growing number of visitors. We offer both site-specific ad placements as well as the ability to run a network-wide campaign. If you're interested in working with Bloguin to meet your advertising needs, please contact us.
The Bloguin Network is always looking to expand. We're specifically looking for blogs in the sports, entertainment, and video games field, but are open to adding any type of quality site. If you're a blogger and interested in joining our network, please fill out our application form.
The Bloguin Login gives you full access to everything our network has to offer. Your name and password will work for each and every one of our sites. Signing up is simple, and will allow you to post in all our forums, create member blogs, and access other cool features! What are you waiting for? Create an Account! 