MLB HOT STOVE ‘25-‘26

[WhiteTrash]

The material benefit to not having a cap is that you haven't started a precedent - one that could be potentially harmful to players' compensation long-term.

In the NFL, NBA and NHL, the unions aggressively fought salary caps, so much so that they were willing to lose major chunks of seasons. There was no "kumbaya, let's help the owners and everybody will benefit." Those unions simply were neither as powerful nor as unified as the MLBPA. The NFLPA was undercut by its management being cozy with NFL power brokers.

In the NHL, the salary cap definitely has muted salaries and has forced good teams to have to break themselves up; I doubt many players would say it has been a good thing for them. The NBA and especially NFL have grown revenues enough that by and large the caps have not hurt the players, at least not yet.

The evidence so far (30 years, give or take) is no cap hasn't helped or hurt MLB players, and having the cap hasn't helped or hurt the NFL & NBA players.

The question is, has having a cap and more parity helped the whole NFL and NBA with growth? I don't know the answer.

[WhiteTrash]

The NHL and NFL players did not go along with salary caps for the good of the sport. The NFL had multiple work stoppages over the issue and the NHL missed a half a season in the 90s and the entire 2004-05 season over it. And it's definitely depressed wages in both sports.
Prior to the cap, the average NHL payroll was $44 million, and seven clubs had payrolls above $60 million. The initial cap was $39 million, and the cap didn't exceed $60 million until 2012. That's tens of millions of losses for players.


Not sure what the argument for "competitive balance would be good for the sport" is based upon. Again, MLB had record revenues last year and both TV ratings and attendance are rising. The sport is doing just fine.

Moreover, the idea that the sport lacks competitive balance is overblown.
Since 2000, 15 different teams have won the World Series, i.e. half the league. 
In the supposedly more competitively balanced NFL, there have been 14 different champions in the same time frame. NBA? 12. NHL? 14.

I freely admit I'm not a NHL expert. I remember there was financial stress on the majority of the NHL teams, but that may have been the commissioner's PR spin.

How is it that the NFL has depressed wages and yet they are at the same % of revenue as MLB? Honest question, does MLB have a bunch of dopes representing players?

EDIT: you make a great point on the competitive balance , I'd guess you'd say, fallacy. 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

In some ways having a team to hate like the Dodgers peaks interest because you get a "villian" and a team to cheer against and a chance to root for an underdog. 

[dgies9156]

The material benefit to not having a cap is that you haven't started a precedent - one that could be potentially harmful to players' compensation long-term.

In the NFL, NBA and NHL, the unions aggressively fought salary caps, so much so that they were willing to lose major chunks of seasons. There was no "kumbaya, let's help the owners and everybody will benefit." Those unions simply were neither as powerful nor as unified as the MLBPA. The NFLPA was undercut by its management being cozy with NFL power brokers.

In the NHL, the salary cap definitely has muted salaries and has forced good teams to have to break themselves up; I doubt many players would say it has been a good thing for them. The NBA and especially NFL have grown revenues enough that by and large the caps have not hurt the players, at least not yet.

The only way I could ever see the MLBPA agreeing to a cap would be if a couple of teams went bankrupt and were contracted.

The closest we've ever come to bankruptcy was the Seattle Pilots in 1969, which was bought out of bankruptcy and moved to Milwaukee. I suspect the only reason the Montreal Expos were not bankrupt was Major League Baseball agreed to operate the franchise and move it to Washington. The Expos were not contracted because the solved a problem with Washington for MLB.

If an MLB team went bankrupt and the franchise charter returned to the Commissioner, then maybe. The probability of that happening is about the same as the players accepting a salary cap -- 0.0000000000000000000001 percent.

[WhiteTrash]

The only way I could ever see the MLBPA agreeing to a cap would be if a couple of teams went bankrupt and were contracted.

The closest we've ever come to bankruptcy was the Seattle Pilots in 1969, which was bought out of bankruptcy and moved to Milwaukee. I suspect the only reason the Montreal Expos were not bankrupt was Major League Baseball agreed to operate the franchise and move it to Washington. The Expos were not contracted because the solved a problem with Washington for MLB.

If an MLB team went bankrupt and the franchise charter returned to the Commissioner, then maybe. The probability of that happening is about the same as the players accepting a salary cap -- 0.0000000000000000000001 percent.

At the end of the day, it doesn't make a damn worth of difference if MLB had a cap.

If I remember correctly, this discussion was rooted in the concept of a salary floor in MLB to compel some owners to spend more. The probability of MLB having a floor without a cap is -- 0.0000000000000000000001 percent

[Pakuni]

The evidence so far (30 years, give or take) is no cap hasn't helped or hurt MLB players, and having the cap hasn't helped or hurt the NFL & NBA players.

The question is, has having a cap and more parity helped the whole NFL and NBA with growth? I don't know the answer.

I guess I would question both points.
What's the evidence that the cap hasn't hurt NFL or NBA players? And what's the evidence that the cap has created more parity? We already know it hasn't created more champions.

[MU82]

The evidence so far (30 years, give or take) is no cap hasn't helped or hurt MLB players, and having the cap hasn't helped or hurt the NFL & NBA players.

The question is, has having a cap and more parity helped the whole NFL and NBA with growth? I don't know the answer.

Correct, you don't know the answer. You also don't know whether a salary cap has had anything to do with parity or growth. As Pakuni pointed out, MLB has had more parity despite no cap.

There is absolutely no incentive for the MLBPA to accept a salary cap.

[MU82]

If I remember correctly, this discussion was rooted in the concept of a salary floor in MLB to compel some owners to spend more. The probability of MLB having a floor without a cap is -- 0.0000000000000000000001 percent

What do you base your probably percentage on?

[WhiteTrash]

I guess I would question both points.
What's the evidence that the cap hasn't hurt NFL or NBA players? And what's the evidence that the cap has created more parity? We already know it hasn't created more champions.

The evidence is the 3 major sport have ended up with the same split of revenues going to the players. I also don't buy the idea that the NFL and NBA players are represented by experts who are not as smart as us yahoos, who think they have been hoodwinked into repeated bad labor deals.


I did go back and concede the point on competitive balance.

[WhiteTrash]

Correct, you don't know the answer. You also don't know whether a salary cap has had anything to do with parity or growth. As Pakuni pointed out, MLB has had more parity despite no cap.

There is absolutely no incentive for the MLBPA to accept a salary cap.

This been essentially my point all along. I only pointed out that the floor, that would come with a cap, would protect MLB players against owners trying to depress wages. The NBA and NFL don't have that worry. But I also said that was highly unlikely, the current system works, so yes, why change?

[WhiteTrash]

What do you base your probably percentage on?

dgies