Would Baseball be better using my theory ??

WorldNumberOne · Dec 23, 2008

Take the collective take of all the money that comes in from all their revenue sources.

Spread it around to all the teams.

Now every team has money to spend. Only kicker is that you can only spend $ 100 to 120 million on players salaries.

Every team spends the same .

What a better product it would be .. Every team has a chance to win as they go to spring training.

crookedlink · Dec 23, 2008

LOL, yea it's not like the MLB is trying to run a business or anything.

FairWarning · Dec 23, 2008

I agree. That is what makes the NFL great.

JakeT. · Dec 23, 2008

Why should the Yankees and Red Sox be punished for making a ton more cash than other teams? It would be nice to even out the playing field but giving money to other teams isn't fair to the owners at all.

WorldNumberOne · Dec 23, 2008

would be nice to see how every team spent their 100 mil and how the talent was spread around.

wouldnt bother me at all if all 30 teams finished 81-81

Kruser6 · Dec 23, 2008

Why would you have the owners spread the money around. As Jake said, that wouldn't be fair to the owners to give money to other teams.

Doesn't a salary cap solve this problem. Each team is allowed to spend X amount of money on there players. Then each team would have even salaries and it would be about your farm league and how you put your team together, not how deep your pockets were.

Currently if you were to go to a Yankees game you have to spend $150-$250 just to have a decent time at a ballgame. The reasoning is that teams like New York and Boston have so much more money in there cities and can afford to charge these amount compared to teams like Kansas City. If there was a salary cap and owners didn't need to drive up these prices for tickets and concessions then it could once again be affordable to go to a baseball game again. Problem is the people in New York are used to paying these prices and they still fill the seats. Places like Kansas City can't thus your problem with having no salary cap.

It is absolutely ridiculous for a player to be paid 180 million to play 8 years of baseball. Until there is a salary cap teams will just keep transferring these fees over to their fans in order to bring these big players in.

Iceman · Dec 23, 2008

Right let them keep their own revenue, just have a salry cap. I agree 81-81 is a lot better.

Too be honest though it is a ton better then it use to be. In fact a lot of the smaller markets teams are winning nowdays but the thing that sucks is every big name free agent signs with one of about 5 teams. That is totally unfair and not fun for the fans.

Kruser6 · Dec 23, 2008

Iceman said:
Right let them keep their own revenue, just have a salry cap. I agree 81-81 is a lot better.

Too be honest though it is a ton better then it use to be. In fact a lot of the smaller markets teams are winning nowdays but the thing that sucks is every big name free agent signs with one of about 5 teams. That is totally unfair and not fun for the fans.

The smaller teams are winning but they'll never be able to afford to keep the players that get them there.

If they do, at what cost?

The cost is to where the average guy can't take his son to a game because the tickets/beverage/food is too expensive. It has become a rich man's game all around.

asufan550 · Dec 23, 2008

Guys, a salary cap does not equal a level playing field. Shit, look at the Cardinals/Bengals/Browns/Clippers, etc. The Marlins and Rays have shown that you don't need to spend exorbitant amounts of money to be competitive. What you do need, however, is competent people making decisions. No need for a salary cap. Look at the last seven or so WS winners. How many spent a lot more than everyone else? Two. Both were the Red Sox. Every team does have a chance going in to spring training. That's what's great about the sport. Does nobody remember the Tigers team that lost to the Cards in the WS three years ago? They were expected to lose 90-100 games.