True Way to “Realign” The Show

by on March 12, 2010   4 Comments

Truly the best way to keep baseball in its current mind state, and even making it better possibly, would be by putting in a salary cap.  This would level out the playing field and keep all the past traditions and rivalries in place.  Put the salary limit at roughly 110-20 million (hard for NYs , BOS, LAs , and a few others) with a minimum at 50-60 million (the owners can agree on the dollar amount, depending on how much the top wants to give to the bottom and their must be a minimum, for true equal competition) (I know the lower end teams are being forced to spend the revenue tax <Marlins= Hanley Rameriz> but the top needs to have a cap to make the current proposal really work).  Give teams 2 or 3 years deadline to make the cap and results would be shocking (I think so).  Some clubs would be forced to trade major players or even stars for prospects and the bottom clubs would have to do vice verse (Yankees and Red Sox players going to teams like Kansas City, San Diego, Florida, and Oakland).    

I’m quite sure results would be different in the MLB and drafts could change franchises quickly as well with the addition of a salary cap.  Teams could come from almost nothing with one or two years of high quality drafting.  Add a few role players from the free agent market to go along with them and a club can be quite competitive.   The salary cap would take away from teams being worried about signing highly touted draft picks (not taking the true number one best player because of sign ability issue), like the Nationals and Strausberg, or even currently in the NFL and what the Rams are pondering with their number 1 pick.  An example is Oklahoma City in the NBA and how they are set up for the future (in my eyes) and the NFL and its past few seasons.  It has been pretty wild in the playoffs with some shocking teams coming to play in big games.

Or why don’t you set up two leagues based on payroll?   Say the Premier and the “…not really sure…” Top fifteen clubs go in one league (3 divisions, all 5 teams per) while the lower payroll teams go to the other league, same setup.  It would be somewhat new divisions sparking new interest and every club would truly have a shot  of making it to the championship every year.  It would be a league of the elites and a league of the upcoming which would spark some interest and bring out the David versus Goliath in the end.  To keep from new dynasties building realign every 5-10 years depending on the situations of each club and their financial situation.  If all clubs benefit financially and all feel they have an equal chance then there could be a geographic realignment sort of like the NFL did in 2002. (add two more teams as well like the NFL (though they only added one), I know two more cities want franchises)  At least competiveness amongst similar salary arrangements would spark interest in the beginning because things would be fair and the weaker clubs could make it to the postseason and play in the “Final” every year, they could not keep the name the World Series (they should just put in a salary cap to help make the situation right in my opinion). 

(I’m going to make the leagues being divided by salaries and break them into divisions…coming soon)

Or they could set up divisions based on NFL/NBA rivalries (major ones).   I don’t think this is as good of an idea as the other two but anything but the current idea,  Please!!  I can not believe that the MLB is really even thinking about something like that????  All ideas based off the radical idea put out by someone in the MLB.

Author: Brian LaRue
Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:

4 Comments »

  1. While I agree with the fact that a salary cap (a minimum salary cap, at the very least) could definitely improve many aspects of baseball, I’ve gotta disagree with your idea of reassigning teams to new divisions based on salary, performance, etc.

    That, in my opinion, would be the worst possible thing that Major League Baseball could do. Why “punish” teams who have built great franchises, developed solid cores of players, or are willing to actually spend money in order to win, while giving teams who aren’t willing to do those things an equal chance by placing the strong teams in one division and the weak teams in a separate division?

    On top of that, in order to keep the system working, the divisions would have to be readjusted every year based on performance, salary, etc., ruining any sense of rivalry that could be built between teams.

    I understand that not every franchise has the means to go out and spend money like New York, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc., but some teams make virtually no effort to put a winning team on the field (i.e. San Diego Padres, who traded Jake Peavy and will end up trading Adrian Gonzalez by the 2010 deadline.)

    Comment by Matt Pennington
    March 12, 2010 at 10:01 pm

  2. To be fair to the Pads, the owner going through a nasty divorce has not helped matters in the least.

    But the Marlins, Twins, D’Backs, Rockies have proven in recent years that big salary is not necessary for success.

    Comment by Mac
    March 12, 2010 at 11:39 pm

  3. While it’s not always necessary, it certainly helps. By shipping off their star players before they reach their “big contract,” and also refusing to spend on free agents, it just helps the strong teams get stronger because they’re the beneficiaries of this whole deal by being able to trade for good players from teams who have to trade them, and having less competition on the free agent market.

    Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, White Sox, Cardinals, Red Sox…the last six WS winners, and all are teams with payrolls exceeding the $100 million mark.

    Comment by Matt Pennington
    March 13, 2010 at 2:31 pm

  4. I agree – some people get swayed with the illusion that small market teams can compete because a small market team like the Twins sneak into the playoffs now and again, but if you were to take the overall win-loss over the last 10 years of the $100+ million dollar payrolls versus the payrolls under $100 million, you’d see that gap.

    One good point I heard on XM Home Plate the other day was that baseball is a sport where dominance isn’t as obvious, because everyone loses at least 50 games a year and a 10 game spread doesn’t seem so bad over the course of a 162-game season, but make no mistake, 10 games is dominance.

    I posted a while back about what would happen if you took a team like the Marlins and gave them $120 MORE million to add players to match the Yankees – could you imagine? I don’t even know if the entire 2010 free agent class will make $120 million this year – put them all on the Marlins to hit around Hanley and Uggla and Coughlan – Bay, Holliday, Figgins, – and Lackey, Sheets, Harden, in the rotation, Gonzalez, Valverde, Wagner in the pen and still have $50 million left to fill the holes.

    Comment by Jason Wuerfel
    March 13, 2010 at 5:59 pm

Leave a comment