Question of the week: do you care more about a floor or a cap?

[Brock Beauchamp]

This is the first DiamondCentric-wide poll, click into the link to vote. Do you care more about the next CBA having a salary cap or a salary floor? I know many of you want to hammer "both!", but ya gotta choose one.

Do you care more about MLB mandating a salary floor or a salary cap? - DiamondCentric

DIAMONDCENTRIC.NET

[Mike Sixel]

Floor and it isn't close. Anything that helps the players more....

[Jim H]

I don't really care about either. If you care about the players, change the 40 man to a 50 man roster and require that everyone on it is paid at least major league minimum. Also raise the minimum and change the 26 man major league roster to 28, 30 would be better. That would probably benefit marginal major leaguers more than a floor.

[USAFChief]

Cap. Easily.

MLB cannot long survive without fixing the talent imbalance. 

[sethmoko]

Floor. And it should exist without a cap. Players should get X% of league revenues in total as verified by independent accountants and agreed upon standards. If some teams want to spend more than that to put on quality baseball for their fans and therefore earn more money for themselves, let them. Basic capitalism

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Cap. Easily.

MLB cannot long survive without fixing the talent imbalance. 

Anything to help the owners!

[LakesPibble]

One without the other doesn't make sense.

[Vanimal46]

5 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Floor and it isn't close. Anything that helps the players more....

 

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Cap. Easily.

MLB cannot long survive without fixing the talent imbalance. 

Both are equally important for the competitive nature of the game. Make the owners accountable for putting a quality team on the field, and don't allow the Dodgers to spend over 2x what the league average payroll is. 

[USAFChief]

13 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

 

Both are equally important for the competitive nature of the game. Make the owners accountable for putting a quality team on the field, and don't allow the Dodgers to spend over 2x what the league average payroll is. 

No problem with that, but the OP question asks me to choose one or the other.

I care about the health of MLB. That leaves only one answer. Cap. 

[USAFChief]

3 hours ago, Jim H said:

I don't really care about either. If you care about the players, change the 40 man to a 50 man roster and require that everyone on it is paid at least major league minimum. Also raise the minimum and change the 26 man major league roster to 28, 30 would be better. That would probably benefit marginal major leaguers more than a floor.

Adding to either roster only serves to further concentrate talent in a couple organizations. 

We need less concentration, not more.

 

Edited Thursday at 09:33 PM by USAFChief

[The Great Hambino]

I'm not choosing because choosing one and not the other is nonsensical.  Neither functions properly and as intended without the other. 

It's like asking if sauerkraut or swiss cheese is more important in making a reuben.  It doesn't matter which you choose - if you don't have both, you don't have a reuben.

After seeing the initial proposals put out by both parties ... I still think that there won't be a prolonged work stoppage because the looming media contract renewals are the mechanism of mutually-assured destruction that will prevent one.  Neither party can afford to kill their media rights market after all the effort that's been put into getting them all on the same 2028 timeline. 

But I'm less sure of that than I was before seeing the proposals.  This is going to be an awful offseason.  Given the uncertainty and the ever-growing pile of mediocre teams that are "contending", it might be an awfully quiet trade deadline as well

[Squirrel]

I don’t think it can be either/or. It can’t be one without the other, imo. So my answer is neither or both. But neither will happen mostly because owners are who they are.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

Both.  Put in complete revenue sharing and and add an NFL-style salary structure.  It seems to work very well in football and would be worth a try in MLB.  Getting the owners and players on board, however, would be quite a feat.  

 

[TheLeviathan]

I can't vote without an option of "Both" like others have said.  I absolutely hate that the players are forcing me to be sympathetic to the owners' position by being opposed to a cap with no qualifications.  As long as the Dodgers have a 70M advantage on local broadcasting alone with no mechanism to share that money....a cap absolutely has to happen.  Also, as long as some owners are content to deposit their revenue sharing checks....a floor absolutely has to happen.

The NHL has an absolutely wonderful system that I wish the league would copy.  Younger players don't go through 6 years of indentured servitude and get paid much more, much faster.  Teams are forced to meet a floor.  The cap allows for large contracts.  It has a few flaws but it is mostly a great system.  It's right there, waiting to be copied!

Also, I'm not sure why the MLBPA isn't willing to entertain a cap in exchange for high floors.  The whole goal is reaching as close to 60% of the revenue going their way and a floor would be a great way to do that.  The cap is then just gravy money you get on top of the floors.  Sprinkle in some much-needed cash infusions to treat minor leaguers like humans instead of cannon fodder and it's a deal I can get behind!

Instead....luxury taxes and other BS like that.  It forces me to start to oppose the players and I hate being in that position.

[Squirrel]

2 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Also, I'm not sure why the MLBPA isn't willing to entertain a cap in exchange for high floors. 

Wasn’t that tried and rejected by owners? Revenue sharing was part of that and the owners said no because they don’t want to open their books

[Jim H]

2 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Both.  Put in complete revenue sharing and and add an NFL-style salary structure.  It seems to work very well in football and would be worth a try in MLB.  Getting the owners and players on board, however, would be quite a feat.  

 

The NFL has parity. I believe they sacrifice quality to get that.  A lot of NFL games are almost unwatchable. Parity isn't the only reason for that, but there is some that going on in baseball. The Twins have no middle of the order bats with Jeffers injured, they play at least 2 utility infielders at short, 2nd, and cf everyday, and their bullpen is still a mess. Yet they are still in position to qualify for the postseason if the can just play a little better.

I want to see better baseball.  Not just from the Twins. If a salary cap and a salary floor makes for better baseball, I am for it. I don't have any reason to believe that salary cap and floor will do that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

14 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Wasn’t that tried and rejected by owners? Revenue sharing was part of that and the owners said no because they don’t want to open their books

The owners just proposed a salary floor of $171 million. Don't know exactly how that number is calculated, though.

MLB Owners Drop a Bombshell with Hard Salary Cap & Floor Counterproposal - MLB - DiamondCentric

DIAMONDCENTRIC.NET

---

The fight for the next CBA has officially escalated, putting billionaires and millionaires on a collision course that could cost games.

[TheLeviathan]

41 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Wasn’t that tried and rejected by owners? Revenue sharing was part of that and the owners said no because they don’t want to open their books

It at least appears to be on the table at this point.  And their number, while low, wasn't preposterously low.

To me, the first olive branch in this exchange happened on behalf of the billionaires.  Good negotiations should be working around that reasonable parameter: they offered a floor for the first time ever, maybe the players agree to a cap after some hard negotiations that pulls both numbers up to a level that they find acceptable.

If players stay firmly on "no cap ever" - I simply can't support their perspective.

[Permanent Twins Fan]

I like the idea of implementing a salary floor, but there is no way that 175 million will get passed. Small market teams like the Twins will not be willing to raise their payroll by that much.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 minutes ago, Permanent Twins Fan said:

I like the idea of implementing a salary floor, but there is no way that 175 million will get passed. Small market teams like the Twins will not be willing to raise their payroll by that much.

The owners made that offer, so it’s very real in the sense that teams agreed to it. 

[USAFChief]

3 hours ago, Permanent Twins Fan said:

I like the idea of implementing a salary floor, but there is no way that 175 million will get passed. Small market teams like the Twins will not be willing to raise their payroll by that much.

I'd assume increases in revenue sharing.