NY is paying A-Rod and Clemens more than what well over half the teams are paying their rosters.
With the Yankees around 300 million, Red Sox over 200 million, Mets over 150 million and team like the Pirates at 35 million, A's at 40 million and Marlins at 35 should there be a cap in MLB.
2007-05-26 05:02:02 · 21 answers · asked by Amanda B 4 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Just for the record there, the Pirates are actually more around 45 million, but some of that is money owed to the A's for Kendall. But that is just a side thing there.
As for a cap, there needs to be one, but the owners will never go for it. Why would they want to give up more money in their pockets with a cap in place? Look at the luxury tax and how that hasnt worked. The top teams that you mentioned just dish out more, because they can afford to pay it.
With the luxury tax though, the teams that get that money need to be accountable to where that money goes though. I am a Pirate fan, and many of us want to know what the owners have done with the money, since we are looking at 15 straight losing seasons.
I would love to see a cap in place, but I dont see it ever happening.
2007-05-26 14:25:25 · answer #1 · answered by Jeff W 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
http://www.wholesalesoccerjerseyser.com/
Welcome to the unofficial NHL Uniform Database. Here, you can explore all the uniforms from the entire history of the National Hockey League. The teams are at ...
2014-05-30 16:14:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see the MLB or the players association ever authorizing a salary cap, would it help same teams, perhaps, but most teams that have small salaries have them because their owners would rather line their already fat pockets with more money. People always make the Yankees and Red Sox out to be the big bad bullies in the MLB and will buy any player they want, which is totally inaccurate. George Steinbrennier himself once said that the Yankees fans are willing to pay for the tickets so he owes it to them to spend that money on the team. I am sure the Red Sox owners have the same belief, the fans pay to see the best possible team on the field, if more owners where willing to spend then there would be a lot less talk about a salary cap or a league minimum.
2016-05-18 02:41:42 · answer #3 · answered by marquerite 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will never happen, as someone else said the players union will neve vote to give themselves less money.
Why not this. A 100% penalty on all money spent by a team over 60 million, to be split among the small market teams. So if your at 60 million and you sign someone to a 10 million dollar deal, you have to pay a 10 million dollar fine that will go into a fund to be split up. They would have to put some rule in place to force the small teams to spend that money and not pocket it.
They need to do something, I'm sick of watching my teams players grow into stars and then go to a big market team.
2007-05-26 06:19:42 · answer #4 · answered by cmac300 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, first of all the A's of a salary of 70 million. second with a salary cap it wil be harder to get talent from other countries. isn't better if the MLB has the best talent in the world. Think about it if you don't have the teams with the most fans in the playoffs who would watch. It also make for underdogs teams, and fans love the underdog. A salary cap would be horrible.
2007-05-26 08:16:32 · answer #5 · answered by Dodgerblue 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Other than guaranteeing profits for the owners (which they would love, no doubt), what purpose would it serve?
And a salary floor does little but ensure that marginal players WILL be overpaid. Being required to spend X-million bucks doesn't mean that players worthy of that largesse will fill the roster.
Ranting for a salary cap is trying to solve the wrong problem. That sort of idiocy plays well in politics, but not in economics.
2007-05-26 07:55:18 · answer #6 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES!!! Not only should MLB have an upper cap, they should also have a minimum cap of at least 50% the highest payroll. This insures that the Yankees can't spend wildly on veteran players as well as makes sure that the cheapskate Royals MUST pay for good players.
2007-05-26 06:49:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is a moot point because the player's union would never allow it. This is a union that has struck several times in the past over far less. Baseball has recovered nicely since the season was cancelled in '94 ( remember there was no World Series that year) and it would be very dangerous to have another protracted work stoppage.
2007-05-26 05:38:10 · answer #8 · answered by ligoneskiing 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There should not be a salary cap in sports. Money rarely win championships. A-Rod was better before his big payday
2007-05-26 05:12:04 · answer #9 · answered by Mychal S 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, there should be a salary cap. This way dominant players will not be clustered on the same team; they will be distributed though out the league.
2007-05-26 05:07:17 · answer #10 · answered by booney_tunes 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋