Here are the results from this week's poll.. a day late. I got a little distracted by the Roy Oswalt post, apparently.
Should there be a salary cap in baseball?
Yes 7 (63%)
No 3 (27%)
Undecided 1 (9%)
The majority of readers seem to think that a salary cap is necessary, but there is still a fairly sizable minority that seems to think a salary cap shouldn't happen.
This is a hot topic right now because Bud Selig's "special committee" may recommend such a thing, and during the next collective bargaining agreement (after the 2011 season, I believe) it may become an issue. Currently, baseball salaries are the highest of any sport, and that's because it's the only major American sport without a salary cap. Every other sport functions with a salary cap, why can't baseball?
The main reason for that the Major League Baseball Player's Union, which seems to carry considerably more weight than any other player's union in any other sport. As players, the Union obviously wants to insure that players get the most money possible, and really this seems to be their primary concern. The MLB Player's Assocation would have a hard time agreeing to a salary cap.
Would a salary cap help baseball? I think in many ways it would. It's probably the easiest way to bring parity back to the game, and put everyone at the same (or close to the same) level. People would no longer be able to complain about the Yankees and Red Sox "buying championships". All teams would have the same amount of resources to pay their players. The question gets more complicated when you consider whether or not signing bonuses paid to draft picks and international signees, as well as money put into the scouting department, counts towards the salary cap. If those things don't count, the major league teams with deeper pockets would still have an advantage, albeit a smaller one that they have ever had.
Another major question about it is where a cap would be set. Currently, only 8 teams in major league baseball have a payroll over $100 million, meaning 22 teams are already underneath that. One could probably set the salary cap at around 100 million, but there are a lot of teams that can't even afford that (see: Pittsburgh Pirates, Oakland Athletics), that's the reason they don't approach $100 million anyway. Although, it's conceivable that in a world where everyone had to be under a salary cap, GMs would have an easier time asking their managers for money because the over-powering teams in each division would not be as powerful, for the most part. I think a reasonable place to set the salary cap is somewhere in the middle, something like $80million. Only 12 teams in the major leagues seem unable to reach $80 million at this point, and the extremely deep-pocketed teams would be on the same playing field.
Showing posts with label special committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label special committee. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Slotted Draft Poll Results
Hey everyone, sorry for another kind of weak week of blog posts. Luckily the semester is almost over.
Anyway as has come a pretty regular Monday activity around here, here are the results from last week's poll:
Do you think the MLB should force teams to only pay slotted amounts to draft picks to increase parity?
Yes 8 (61%)
No 5 (38%)
As some of you may know, Bug Selig's Special Committee has had discussions about making it so that teams could not pay over certain amounts for picks in the draft, depending on where they are drafted. It seems that the majority of you, although deifnitely not a strong majority, seem to be interested in this system being implemented. I think I'll list the basic arguments for each system as I see it now.
Arguments for forcing teams to pay slotted amounts:
-Teams with less money will definitely be able to sign high draft picks. The Royals frequently shy away from the players who should really be taken high in the draft because of the amount of money they demand. Sometimes players slip extremely far to big-market teams because of their demands (Clay Buchholz is the first person that comes to mind).
-As is kind of suggested above, big market teams will not have a draft advantage. The draft is intended to award the best players to the teams with the worst records so they can improve over time. The way the system works now, that isn't really happening, especially for teams like the Royals and the Pirates.
Arguments for keeping things the way they are:
-The Tampa Bay Rays and the Florida Marlins. The Rays and Marlins, despite having two of the loewst payrolls in the majors, are perennial contenders as of late, and always seem to manage to grab good players in the draft. This appear in large part to be due to their scouting, since they don't sign too many players for ludicrous amounts of money, they just grab undervalued players who seem to develop really well. Of course, both of these teams are also helped by some brilliant non-draft front office moves (Carlos Pena for the Rays, and Hanley Ramirez for the Marlins).
-Many argue that there is plenty of parity in the game today, especially since even in a big market dominated division like the AL East, there have been three different AL East champions the last three years. This is indicative of things all over the major leagues, as most divisions (with the exception of the AL West) don't seem to be dominated by any one team when looking at the last 10 years or so.
Personally, I'd like to see this plan implemented, because I thinkt he way the draft works is unfair to small market teams, because the deeper pockets of big market teams are making it so they essentially get the players that the smaller-market, perenially losing teams are really supposed to get.
It should be noted that a change like this would have to be implemented after 2011, when a new Collective Bargaining Agreement has to be made with the Player's Union. Should be interesting to see what the Union's resposne is to something like this. It's somethign that means players make less money, so I can see it being a challenge for Selig.
Anyway as has come a pretty regular Monday activity around here, here are the results from last week's poll:
Do you think the MLB should force teams to only pay slotted amounts to draft picks to increase parity?
Yes 8 (61%)
No 5 (38%)
As some of you may know, Bug Selig's Special Committee has had discussions about making it so that teams could not pay over certain amounts for picks in the draft, depending on where they are drafted. It seems that the majority of you, although deifnitely not a strong majority, seem to be interested in this system being implemented. I think I'll list the basic arguments for each system as I see it now.
Arguments for forcing teams to pay slotted amounts:
-Teams with less money will definitely be able to sign high draft picks. The Royals frequently shy away from the players who should really be taken high in the draft because of the amount of money they demand. Sometimes players slip extremely far to big-market teams because of their demands (Clay Buchholz is the first person that comes to mind).
-As is kind of suggested above, big market teams will not have a draft advantage. The draft is intended to award the best players to the teams with the worst records so they can improve over time. The way the system works now, that isn't really happening, especially for teams like the Royals and the Pirates.
Arguments for keeping things the way they are:
-The Tampa Bay Rays and the Florida Marlins. The Rays and Marlins, despite having two of the loewst payrolls in the majors, are perennial contenders as of late, and always seem to manage to grab good players in the draft. This appear in large part to be due to their scouting, since they don't sign too many players for ludicrous amounts of money, they just grab undervalued players who seem to develop really well. Of course, both of these teams are also helped by some brilliant non-draft front office moves (Carlos Pena for the Rays, and Hanley Ramirez for the Marlins).
-Many argue that there is plenty of parity in the game today, especially since even in a big market dominated division like the AL East, there have been three different AL East champions the last three years. This is indicative of things all over the major leagues, as most divisions (with the exception of the AL West) don't seem to be dominated by any one team when looking at the last 10 years or so.
Personally, I'd like to see this plan implemented, because I thinkt he way the draft works is unfair to small market teams, because the deeper pockets of big market teams are making it so they essentially get the players that the smaller-market, perenially losing teams are really supposed to get.
It should be noted that a change like this would have to be implemented after 2011, when a new Collective Bargaining Agreement has to be made with the Player's Union. Should be interesting to see what the Union's resposne is to something like this. It's somethign that means players make less money, so I can see it being a challenge for Selig.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Poll Results and Some Comments
Hey everyone, I figured I'd post the results of the poll, and comment on the results as well as my feelings about each of the reforms and my opinions on their likelihood.
Poll Question: Which of the potential reforms that Bud Selig's "special committee" is considering would you most like to see?
Reforms to increase the pace of game - 2 (16%)
Removal of the Designated Hitter in the American League - 6 (50%)
Some kind of change to divisional alignment - 3 (25%)
I don't like any of them - 1 (8%)
Obviously we're only going on 12 votes here (heck, I'm glad I have 12 readers, haha), but I still think this is a very interesting poll, especially if it reflects the general public's view of these potential reforms.
As you can clearly see, half of the voters want the DH removed in the American League. This came as kind of a shock to me, because I know a lot of people who love the DH and the extra runs it produces. So I'm not sure if it indicates the majority of my readers are NL fans, or if there are really lots of AL people who want to get rid of the DH. I can see a lot of benefits to the removal of the DH. The managers would have to work more, bench players would serve more of a purpose and see more playing time, and the speed of American League games would increase. From a GM standpoint, I can see them liking it because it creates an even playing field and more symmetry between the leagues, making it easier to predict what a player will do in one league or the other. It would also probably lead to a decrease in average payroll in the American League. I am interested to see if this type of change would have to pass through the Players Association, because if it does, I could see them not wanting it to happen. A lot of players view the DH as a way of creating more longevity in their careers, and the Players Association might agree. I kind of feel like this is the least likely of all the reforms to happen, but that's just my opinion.
In second place (with 25 percent of the vote) was a change to divisional alignment. I am sure there are some readers whose teams get buried underneath other teams in their division, or some readers who feel the fact that the AL West only has 4 teams is unfair. I can see the point of both of these arguments, because a team like the Marlins or the Rays or the Rangers could really benefit from a change in division. I think if any type of change happens, it will probably be a fairly small one, and not the "floating alignment" that has been rumored on and off, just because I can't see that working. One or two teams may move around (kind of like when the Brewers moved in 1994), but I don't think it will be a major move. I think this is kind of likely, but like I said, only in a small-scale form.
In third place (with 16 percent) was improvements to the pace of game. I can understand wanting this to happen, especially because baseball is apparently losing some audience because of the slow pace of game. I think some reforms definitely need to happen, as I made clear in an earlier post of mine, but i also think it will be pretty difficult to institue some of the rules hat would lead to an increase in pace of game. Despite that, I think that this reform is probably the most likely to happen, in part because I think it's a perfect storm of interest. The MLB would be happy to decrease the length of the games because it will increase their ratings, and the fans would obviously be happy if the games got shorter. It would also be a good PR move, since so many people complain about the length of baseball games.
That's all for now. If you haven't noticed, I have also posted a new poll, and will post my comments on the new topic and the results next week, so vote away!
Poll Question: Which of the potential reforms that Bud Selig's "special committee" is considering would you most like to see?
Reforms to increase the pace of game - 2 (16%)
Removal of the Designated Hitter in the American League - 6 (50%)
Some kind of change to divisional alignment - 3 (25%)
I don't like any of them - 1 (8%)
Obviously we're only going on 12 votes here (heck, I'm glad I have 12 readers, haha), but I still think this is a very interesting poll, especially if it reflects the general public's view of these potential reforms.
As you can clearly see, half of the voters want the DH removed in the American League. This came as kind of a shock to me, because I know a lot of people who love the DH and the extra runs it produces. So I'm not sure if it indicates the majority of my readers are NL fans, or if there are really lots of AL people who want to get rid of the DH. I can see a lot of benefits to the removal of the DH. The managers would have to work more, bench players would serve more of a purpose and see more playing time, and the speed of American League games would increase. From a GM standpoint, I can see them liking it because it creates an even playing field and more symmetry between the leagues, making it easier to predict what a player will do in one league or the other. It would also probably lead to a decrease in average payroll in the American League. I am interested to see if this type of change would have to pass through the Players Association, because if it does, I could see them not wanting it to happen. A lot of players view the DH as a way of creating more longevity in their careers, and the Players Association might agree. I kind of feel like this is the least likely of all the reforms to happen, but that's just my opinion.
In second place (with 25 percent of the vote) was a change to divisional alignment. I am sure there are some readers whose teams get buried underneath other teams in their division, or some readers who feel the fact that the AL West only has 4 teams is unfair. I can see the point of both of these arguments, because a team like the Marlins or the Rays or the Rangers could really benefit from a change in division. I think if any type of change happens, it will probably be a fairly small one, and not the "floating alignment" that has been rumored on and off, just because I can't see that working. One or two teams may move around (kind of like when the Brewers moved in 1994), but I don't think it will be a major move. I think this is kind of likely, but like I said, only in a small-scale form.
In third place (with 16 percent) was improvements to the pace of game. I can understand wanting this to happen, especially because baseball is apparently losing some audience because of the slow pace of game. I think some reforms definitely need to happen, as I made clear in an earlier post of mine, but i also think it will be pretty difficult to institue some of the rules hat would lead to an increase in pace of game. Despite that, I think that this reform is probably the most likely to happen, in part because I think it's a perfect storm of interest. The MLB would be happy to decrease the length of the games because it will increase their ratings, and the fans would obviously be happy if the games got shorter. It would also be a good PR move, since so many people complain about the length of baseball games.
That's all for now. If you haven't noticed, I have also posted a new poll, and will post my comments on the new topic and the results next week, so vote away!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Is pace of game really a problem?
Right now pace of game is a really hot topic in baseball, as most of you probably know. And today, for the first time since Joe West's unprofessional comments (in my opinion) about the season-opening Yankees-Red Sox series, the baseball commissioner spoke his mind on the issue.
For the last few years Selig has been talking about how he would like to improve the pace of game, and a few changes have been made, such as fining players who take too long to do certain things. As most people know, Jonathan Papelbon was fined multiple times this year. It's also been known that the "special committee" for baseball that Selig has appointed has been working on the issue, although it has taken a back seat to the idea of changing divisional alignment in baseball. Despite knowing all this, reading Selig's comments about the need for a change of pace of game are interesting. He seems to feel shortening the game will make it appeal to more people, and I can see where he is coming from to a degree, but I think there is a fallacy in his argument.
Firstly, the two teams that most often make their games last 3 and a half hours or more are the Yankees and the Red Sox. There are enough die hard fans of these two teams that love the long games, especially the games between the two teams, that shortening the game might actually take something away for them. For them (and I am speaking of one of them) shortening the game would be like leaving an extremely good movie in the middle of it, or deciding to stop eating a meal they are really enjoying in the middle of it. What I'm saying is, most of the people that really enjoy baseball aren't bothered by the pace of game for the most part, no matter who their team is, they just enjoy watching their team. While I understand wanting to expand the game to become more popular and compete more closely with the NFL and the NBA, shouldn't the main goal be to entertain the fans that really love the game?
The length of the games is also beneficial monetarily, because it leads to more advertising time for sponsors. Additionally, part of the reason for long baseball games are commercial breaks themselves, since teams and pitchers don't really need the amount of time they are given to get ready for the next inning or hitter, and there is definitely no way that ad-breaks are going to be shortened or eliminated from the game because that would mean a loss of money.
I agree that some things need to be done to fix the pace of game. There should be a limit on how many times a catcher can visit a pitcher on the mound in a single inning for sure, and there should probably be stricter limits on when a hitter can ask for time. Most of the time when I see a hitter ask for time, it's actually something that can be pinned on the pitcher, who is holding the ball extra long to throw off a hitter's timing, so you can blame them for getting out of the box? Stepping out of the box for no real reason needs to be stopped though, even though it would be really hard to institute a rule that prevents it.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on possible reforms in pace of game in baseball, what are your thoughts? Also, if you didn't notice, there is now a poll on the right-hand side of my blog that is related to Bud Selig's "special committee", don't forget to vote!
For the last few years Selig has been talking about how he would like to improve the pace of game, and a few changes have been made, such as fining players who take too long to do certain things. As most people know, Jonathan Papelbon was fined multiple times this year. It's also been known that the "special committee" for baseball that Selig has appointed has been working on the issue, although it has taken a back seat to the idea of changing divisional alignment in baseball. Despite knowing all this, reading Selig's comments about the need for a change of pace of game are interesting. He seems to feel shortening the game will make it appeal to more people, and I can see where he is coming from to a degree, but I think there is a fallacy in his argument.
Firstly, the two teams that most often make their games last 3 and a half hours or more are the Yankees and the Red Sox. There are enough die hard fans of these two teams that love the long games, especially the games between the two teams, that shortening the game might actually take something away for them. For them (and I am speaking of one of them) shortening the game would be like leaving an extremely good movie in the middle of it, or deciding to stop eating a meal they are really enjoying in the middle of it. What I'm saying is, most of the people that really enjoy baseball aren't bothered by the pace of game for the most part, no matter who their team is, they just enjoy watching their team. While I understand wanting to expand the game to become more popular and compete more closely with the NFL and the NBA, shouldn't the main goal be to entertain the fans that really love the game?
The length of the games is also beneficial monetarily, because it leads to more advertising time for sponsors. Additionally, part of the reason for long baseball games are commercial breaks themselves, since teams and pitchers don't really need the amount of time they are given to get ready for the next inning or hitter, and there is definitely no way that ad-breaks are going to be shortened or eliminated from the game because that would mean a loss of money.
I agree that some things need to be done to fix the pace of game. There should be a limit on how many times a catcher can visit a pitcher on the mound in a single inning for sure, and there should probably be stricter limits on when a hitter can ask for time. Most of the time when I see a hitter ask for time, it's actually something that can be pinned on the pitcher, who is holding the ball extra long to throw off a hitter's timing, so you can blame them for getting out of the box? Stepping out of the box for no real reason needs to be stopped though, even though it would be really hard to institute a rule that prevents it.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on possible reforms in pace of game in baseball, what are your thoughts? Also, if you didn't notice, there is now a poll on the right-hand side of my blog that is related to Bud Selig's "special committee", don't forget to vote!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)