All offseason, CBS Sports MLB experts will bring you a weekly Batting Around roundtable, breaking down just about everything. The latest news, a historical question, thoughts on the future of baseball, all sorts of things. Last week we debated the future of Bo Bichette (he since sign with the Mets). This week we’re going to talk about the salary cap.
Does baseball need a salary cap?
RJ Anderson: No.
Matt Snyder: I’ve been a strong advocate of the MLB system for years and I’m still not willing to say that a salary cap would be a reasonable solution, but I understand the push for it at this point. The optics look bad. I understand. When your teams spend five times more than others, it is certain that look at bad. I’ve gotten to the point now where every time we enter an offseason, I basically pray that the Dodgers don’t add anyone because I don’t feel like dealing with the collective hysteria of much of the MLB fan base.
I still believe the bigger problem is the number of owners pocketing revenue share money and the idea that small market teams can’t compete. The Brewers had the best record in baseball last regular season. The Guardians continue to make the playoffs. The Rays argue often.
I’m willing to hear arguments that would level the playing field, but a hard salary cap of around $200 million would do nothing but take money away from the players and keep it in the hands of the owners, who are the problem in the first place. A salary floor obviously comes with a cap, but with three years of pre-arbitration, are you forcing teams to spend money for the sole purpose of spending it just to reach the threshold, possibly then playing a washed-up veteran against a pre-arbitration guy who could become a great player?
There are no right answers.
Mike Axisa: I mean, that’s clearly not the case, right? Record revenues, tremendous attendance, excellent TV/streaming audiences, etc. The league and its teams are making money hand over fist. MLB and owners have done a good job framing the salary cap fight as a matter of competitive balance, but make no mistake. Owners want a cap because it will keep player salaries low and redirect those dollars into their pockets, while increasing the value of their franchise. Don’t believe them when they say otherwise.
That said, there is clearly an income disparity problem. It doesn’t matter how many stats you throw at people that show MLB’s competitive balance is pretty good, actually. If the fans feel like their team doesn’t have a chance, that’s bad. But a salary cap won’t solve this problem. Cheap owners will always be cheap because it’s in their DNA, and the salary floor with a ceiling will not be high enough to change their behavior. I’m not saying it will be easy, but you can solve the income disparity problem by making adjustments to the income sharing program. One with rules that ensure revenue sharing money is spent on the MLB roster rather than just “we’ll spend it on the players, trust us 😉”.
Dayn Perry: No, and the comparisons to the NFL that usually accompany calls for a cap in MLB are completely stupid. You simply cannot compare the two leagues. MLB relies primarily on local revenue, while the NFL is primarily a national revenue league. The NFL plays at a 10% discount on regular-season games hosted by MLB and benefits from the small-sample randomness that comes from such a schedule. Ditto for their unique playoff format. Owners want a cap because they want to reduce labor costs, period. This has nothing to do with parity, of which MLB already has plenty.
