MLB 2013!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

D-Backs got minor league SS Didi Gregorius from the Reds - so it end up being barely a 3 team deal.

I think the D-Backs did the worst by far here... but I think Bauer's stock was seriously damaged by a poor season by him last year.

[SlowwHand]

Baseball needs a salary cap so badly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why do you think any of these deals had high payroll salary implications in mind? Not like the Reds, Indians, or D-Backs are going hog wild outspending the competition - nor the Rays and Royals in the other blockbuster deal.

[SlowwHand]

I don't see anything that I said that addresses any trades. It was an expressed opinion and that's all.

[-Jrabbit]

It's an opinion I've held for many years, and that I feel more strongly about as time goes on.

[snoopy369]

Salary caps don't necessarily foster a competitive environment, unfortunately (see: the NBA). The NFL has a lot of competitive balance, but it's not entirely due to the salary cap; football has so many moving parts that one superstar doesn't make or break your team, and there are enough different kinds of players that you can't make up for weaknesses in one area with superstars in another (see: Chicago Bears). Baseball is in between - NBA is star-driven and nearly every player is interchangeable to a large degree, while MLB has a good degree of interchangeability between position players (and between pitchers of course). You can have three or four really good players and the rest be average and still have a fairly impressive team (SF Giants, for example).

For that matter, spending alone isn't enough to ensure performance - the Yankees and Red Sox spent what, almost $400MM combined last year, to no avail? Neither team was in the World Series, even. The Rays on the other hand spend almost nothing and are still competitive. There are some bad teams that don't spend anything and are bad, but they spend really, really small amounts - way under any potential salary cap. (A hypothetical total-salary-neutral salary cap would be about $100MM, and it probably would have to go up even a bit from that given that MLB teams make a huge amount of money compared to most other sports.) Royals, Astros, etc. have salaries around $50-$70MM perpetually, so they have little chance to succeed - but their owners make off with a ton of money due to revenue sharing (Royals owner claims not to, but independent numbers suggest he makes around $20MM for example, and his team has quadrupled in value in the last decade, to an estimated $394MM in value if he were to sell it... not losing money there for sure.)

No, I think that if we were to have a salary cap, not that much would really happen. The Yankees would lose a player or two, the Dodgers would lose a free agent or two, but a lot of their salary is junk salary anyway (bidding against themselves, basically). Teams like the Pirates and whatnot would continue to flounder at the bottom of the barrel because they won't spend money, and teams that players want to play for (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.) would still get marquee free agents and marquee coaches and GMs, and the owners would just make a lot more money. That's the real thing a salary cap does - guarantees owners make a boatload of cash.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I used to be for a salary cap, but I find myself more and more against one. I thinks its more a cudgel to the problems of competative balance. I believe instead in increased revenue sharing. We find that due to hard salary caps that beloved veterans get cut to save money to get under the cap (the NFL is notorious for this). Revenue sharing would further equalize the money each team has to play with without screwing over the players at the expense of ownership and allowing teams to keep some old stars without having to engage in "creative accounting". I mean Chipper Jones just ended a 20 year career with the Braves - how many NFL players will stay with the same team for 20 years - heck Peyton Manning, argueably the greatest QB of all time, had to switch teams.

And snoopy is correct, that some owners just pocket revenue sharing money, but the big money teams wouldn't make the big money if they didn't have other teams to play against and therefore I think revenue sharing is a good thing even if the owners it goes to don't really shell out.

[-Jrabbit]

I'm well aware of all the above. Not changing my mind on a cap, though I acknowledge that revenue sharing has its merits.

These claims that Team X spent like crazy and lost hold no water, and diminishes the sense of accomplishment when such teams do win. Conversely, the warm-fuzzy stories of overachieving teams with low payrolls just show how random the sport can be, and only makes me wonder what such teams could do with a level playing field. This is not supposed to be an exercise in free market economics; it's supposed to be a sporting competition.

Other sports have shown the way, including the pitfalls. But I'm confident that MLB has neither the will nor the negotiating ability to affect meaningful change, so the likelihood of a salary cap is effectively nil.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The NFL has shown the way so well that I could hardly care about the sport anymore .

[-Jrabbit]

Funny, I feel the same way about baseball.

[rah]

IMO anyone that thinks MLB handles it better than the NFL is totally delusional.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think we MLB fans can say the opposite as well . I mean lets compare a league where a Payton Manning gets shipped off somewhere else while a Chipper Jones or Derek Jeter are allowed to finish out their careers with their home teams.

[snoopy369]

I think we MLB fans can say the opposite as well . I mean lets compare a league where a Payton Manning gets shipped off somewhere else while a Chipper Jones or Derek Jeter are allowed to finish out their careers with their home teams.

Payton finished his career as a Bear thank you very much

Peyton Manning is somewhat of a special case. Had he not been injured like he was, he likely would've finished his career as a Colt. I'm sure baseball has similar cases where players have Tommy John surgery or something and then come back with another team. And then you have Ichiro Suzuki, who's finishing his career as a Mari...no, nevermind. Michael You... nope. Kevin Youk... nope. Oh, wait, Albert Pujols surely is still a Cardinal, right?

The NFL on the other hand has plenty of players who play their whole career for one team. Jason Hanson for example. Tom Brady. Ray Lewis, likely. I imagine a pretty long list could be compiled if one had the time.

Frankly your complaint sounds sort of like the complaint of Cowboys and 49er fans who were upset their teams were basically broken up by the salary cap, or Colorado Avalanche fans, or whatnot. Yes, free agency and the salary cap have some impact on players staying with their team. But it's not necessarily a bad thing, and player loyalty still exists on both sides of the paycheck.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ichiro asked for a trade to a contending team as a favor and the Mariners gave him one (and Ichiro is hardly a life long Mariner - 29 year old rookie and all that). Youklis was, by all accounts, unfairly dealt due to butting heads with the manager which had nothing to do with salary. And Michael Young? Really?

Common sense dictates that a salary cap makes it far less likely that older veterans stay on a team, especially when their salaries outpace production. And massive injuries can be dealt with without having to take drastic measures to get rid of the veteran.

And FWIW, the 49ers were never broken up by the salary cap, because they knew how to game the system. Their star players just got old and retired and they didn't replace them very well.

[snoopy369]

What are you talking about??? Normally you're pretty good at facts, but come on... the 49ers in the late 90s coined the term 'Cap Hell'. Google 'cap hell 49ers' ... here's an article that goes in detail: http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-12-28/n...ensive-line/2/

The 49ers basically decided they wanted one more super bowl, and got it, but at the cost of ten years or so of suckitude.

My point with Ichiro and the others wasn't why they left - it was that they left. You can cherry-pick people from either league that left/didn't leave/were cut/weren't cut. Common sense is a terrible argument, particularly from Mr. Stats guy... sure, there might be some more pressure on player retention, but Free Agency is what killed the lifetime , not the salary cap. Lots of NFL stars are lifetime players for one team, and there are plenty of baseball stars that aren't. More likely what hurts NFL teams in this regard is the lifespan of a player - a baseball player is useful until 35 or so, while NFL players often are past their useful career in their late 20s or early 30s depending on position (QB and K excepted of course). Orlando Pace was a Ram until he was no longer a particularly good OT, and then was cut - and while a baseball player at 39 might say 'okay, I'll leave now', Pace of course at a younger age wanted to keep playing, even though he wasn't very good any more.