Jump to content

Wildcard rules should be changed


birrman54

Recommended Posts

I doubt this would help the Orioles (at least not in the short term), but clearly the wildcard rules should be adjusted.

The entire idea of the Luxury Tax is a failure, surprise surprise, rich teams don't care about spending more money.

If the average league payroll is ~$90M, and say the standard deviation is $12M, then any team 2 std deviations above the league avg payroll should be INELIGIBLE for the wildcard.

If you want to try and buy a championship you should have to win the division, leave the wildcard to the teams that are trying to compete legitimately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you could just institute a real cap and floor with real penalties for ignoring them.

1) A salary cap certainly couldn't be implemented immediately

2) Would you be reducing the size of existing contracts? Or do they have to be fulfilled?

Obviously a salary cap would be nice, the reality is that there are real issues with implementing it given the current state of the league. This is something that could be implemented right away, gives smaller teams a better chance to make the playoffs, and allows free-spending teams to do what they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) A salary cap certainly couldn't be implemented immediately

2) Would you be reducing the size of existing contracts? Or do they have to be fulfilled?

Obviously a salary cap would be nice, the reality is that there are real issues with implementing it given the current state of the league. This is something that could be implemented right away, gives smaller teams a better chance to make the playoffs, and allows free-spending teams to do what they do.

1) Your plan couldn't be implemented immediately either. Mostly because the Yankees will sue and win, since the rule will be specifically towards them.

2) A cap and floor is a long-term solution that may take a few years to put into full force. Maybe you grandfather in current contracts, or give a period of time for teams to decrease/increase their payrolls to the appropriate levels. Whatever you do, it is the least complicated way to permanently solve a major problem with the sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm not sure that a team can just sue over a rule change, but I suppose that's a possibility.

I'm as big a supporter for a legit cap/floor system as anyone, I think it could stabilize ticket prices, improve competitiveness, and make the game a lot more interesting.

I see the Players' Union throwing a fit over it, certain guys like Papelbon, etc have avoided long term deals specifically because they want to get paid. If there's a cap implemented, you're basically "taking" money from them. Meanwhile, CC, etc are still getting paid huge sums.

It's a complicated situation, I don't think we're going to get a solution anytime soon, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) A cap and floor is a long-term solution that may take a few years to put into full force.

A MLB salary cap will never happen. The players union won't allow it, as they demonstrated in 1994. To institute a cap the owners would have to break the union first.

Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about making the luxury tax crushing? Not a salary cap, but set it at something like $140 million and have a 200 or 300% tax on every dollar over that. None of this 40% stuff. So the Yankees can have a $200 million payroll, but it will cost them $120 or $180 million tax.

Honestly, I'd be fine with no baseball for a couple years if that's what it took to break the MLBPA. They have gotten too big for their britches. I blame them for the sport's drug problems especially. I wouldn't mind watching scabs or just having no baseball at all for a couple years while the players figure out that having to get a real job isn't so nice after all and it would be nice to make lesser millions with a cap and IOC-level drug testing than $25,000 working at Duane Reade because many baseball players are lunkheads with no other marketable skills.

Yeah, it'll never happen, and my post is just angry ranting. But it made me feel better to write it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A MLB salary cap will never happen. The players union won't allow it, as they demonstrated in 1994. To institute a cap the owners would have to break the union first.

Good luck with that.

They could very easily break the union if they wanted to. If all the owners were willing to lose a full season, and possibly more, AND work together as one unit instead of 30 individuals, it's likely that the union would at least open up negotiations and be willing to listen.

The problem is, the owners won't do this. If they tried it, the Yankees would probably get a bunch of big-market teams together in opposition to a rule that is essentially for them, and the in-fighting between them and the smaller-market teams would destroy their leverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about making the luxury tax crushing? Not a salary cap, but set it at something like $140 million and have a 200 or 300% tax on every dollar over that. None of this 40% stuff. So the Yankees can have a $200 million payroll, but it will cost them $120 or $180 million tax.

Honestly, I'd be fine with no baseball for a couple years if that's what it took to break the MLBPA. They have gotten too big for their britches. I blame them for the sport's drug problems especially. I wouldn't mind watching scabs or just having no baseball at all for a couple years while the players figure out that having to get a real job isn't so nice after all and it would be nice to make lesser millions with a cap and IOC-level drug testing than $25,000 working at Duane Reade because many baseball players are lunkheads with no other marketable skills.

Yeah, it'll never happen, and my post is just angry ranting. But it made me feel better to write it.

Actually, what you propose is essentially what a salary cap is, or realistically would be in a MLB situation: a limit with real penalties for crossing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could very easily break the union if they wanted to. If all the owners were willing to lose a full season, and possibly more, AND work together as one unit instead of 30 individuals, it's likely that the union would at least open up negotiations and be willing to listen.

The problem is, the owners won't do this. If they tried it, the Yankees would probably get a bunch of big-market teams together in opposition to a rule that is essentially for them, and the in-fighting between them and the smaller-market teams would destroy their leverage.

Indeed, the owners would be fighting the Players Union AND the Steinbrenners in the instance of a strike. I wouldn't like their chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...