Question of the week: do you care more about a floor or a cap?

[Brock Beauchamp]

This is the first DiamondCentric-wide poll, click into the link to vote. Do you care more about the next CBA having a salary cap or a salary floor? I know many of you want to hammer "both!", but ya gotta choose one.

Do you care more about MLB mandating a salary floor or a salary cap? - DiamondCentric

DIAMONDCENTRIC.NET

[MadScientist]

Cap.  The unlimited payroll of the Dodgers is why small market teams like the Brewers fall short, no matter how well they are run.  The floor is just something to make a cap more palatable to the players.

[folly412]

Cap for reasons stated above. 

Other CBA wants:

• Balance around the posting process for Japanese/Korean players.  May be part of the cap or revenue-sharing calculation.  Another area where large market teams (especially the Dodgers) dominate given the fees, and have an incentive to keep going to shut other teams out of the international revenue.
• Service-time manipulation / Super 2 deterrents.  Also related to the floor.  This very likely has factored into our calculations the past couple of years.  Fans want to see exciting young players promoted, and small-market teams in particular have reason to keep them down longer to save money and gain more control.

[wntrtxn21]

A cap is desperately needed, but for anything to work you can't have one without the other.  

[wiguy94]

Brock I'm not sure what you were expecting asking this on a Brewers forum but I'd be shocked if a single person said they would rather have a floor than a ceiling.

[Brock Beauchamp]

12 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

Brock I'm not sure what you were expecting asking this on a Brewers forum but I'd be shocked if a single person said they would rather have a floor than a ceiling.

It's going out to all our sites, and I expect each fanbase to vote in one direction or the other. I'm mostly curious to see where it lands overall.

[Brewcrew82]

I'd say local TV revenue sharing is just as important, if not moreso than any cap. 

The Dodgers are able to spend more not only because they've got a massive TV deal due to their market size, but because they are also EXEMPT from having to pay out the standard share of that pie on account of a bankruptcy settlement under their previous owner. 

That needs to be dealt with first and foremost because how the heck is a market like Milwaukee supposed to compete with that? To Manfred's credit, his idea of combining MLB TV rights like the NFL is a logical solution toward reducing those disparities. 

 

[BarremlensTSSC]

Shouldn't have one without the other, whether it's in tax or hard cap/floor form.

[markedman5]

Obviously these are just starting points in negotiations……..171 salary floor sounds pretty reasonable to.me………especially as a first proposal 

 

[igor67]

I'm curious since it specifically mentioned including benefits if that is normally included in other salary figures? I'm also not sure if benefits for athletes is as significant as it is for other employees.

[markedman5]

This is encouraging 

 

[Samurai Bucky]

34 minutes ago, markedman5 said:

This is encouraging 

 

I think the players' union has a filter -- anything that has the word "cap" in it is automatically dismissed.

I don't recall the union ever stating or endorsing anything involving a cap.