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

[Jason Ross]

Neither. I care about a system that ensures players have a fair slice of the profits. A cap or a floor without open books will almost entirely favor management. The best system would be one in which the cap and floor is defined yearly based on open, transparent profits. Sadly, with MLB's anti-trust exemptions, that's impossible now. And I don't blindly believe a cap or a floor will create any more or less parity than we currently have.

[jersey cubs fan]

You can’t have one without the other and they shouldn’t have either. 
 

bad question that eliminates valid opinions from the discussion 

[Rex Buckingham]

I don't care about either. I just want to see good baseball being played by the Cubs. If one or both of those helps that happen, then sign me up I guess. 

The players deserve a bigger slice of the pie, for sure. And any owner that refuses to spend a reasonable amount of money should be shamed and forced to sell their team, since they're all wildly rich and only getting richer off the backs of others, many (maybe most?) of whom come from disadvantaged situations.

[Andy]

Don't remotely care about either. I know we aren't getting one without the other.

If they put in an owner revenue cap after which their profits get distributed to the city, then I'm in for a player salary cap. Until then, hell no.

[Stratos]

Having both is likely good for the game and for the fans of all teams, which is by far my main concern with any CBA.  I support both but it should be fair to the players.  Caps probably won't happen though.

[Guest]

I lean towards having neither, especially not a floor.  But there are solid arguments for having both.

What's more important to me and something that's constantly overlooked is what MLB needs more than anything is some type of fans union.  As fans we get screwed by ticket prices, blackouts, cba disagreements, etc and noone is out there protecting our interests.

 

Also, nice to meet yall.  I should be around the board a while as long as you'll have me.  I've posted on 2 other boards for about 20 years and finally decided to find a new home here. 

Edited June 12 by bryzz0brist

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, bryzz0brist said:

I lean towards having neither, especially not a floor.  But there are solid arguments for having both.

What's more important to me and something that's constantly overlooked is what MLB needs more than anything is some type of fans union.  As fans we get screwed by ticket prices, blackouts, cba disagreements, etc and noone is out there protecting our interests.

 

Also, nice to meet yall.  I should be around the board a while as long as you'll have me.  I've posted on 2 other boards for about 20 years and finally decided to find a new home here. 

Welcome. I don’t agree with the idea fans need representation. Fact is if it costs too much people don’t go. Yes, I would like the tv rights to be straightened out so everyone can watch their favorite team, but as far as ticket prices, owners will price it as high as they can until they lose the market. That is just capitalism. Pretty sure a tickets to a Cubs or Sox game is still cheaper than going to football, basketball or hockey.
The more I think about it the more I do like the idea of a floor and a cap.  If there is going to be a floor and a cap it has to come with true transparency from the owner on what they are taking in. That is where the problem comes in I don’t see that happening with the owners. But if it did and if they put the cap and floor high enough and shared with the players reasonably, I would be fine with it. However with it, it should eliminate and advantages like compensatory picks, more IFA money, etc… for the lower revenue teams. All teams play by the same rules. If something monetary has to be worked out, that is fine. But no more advantages in the form of draft picks, etc. 

[CubinNY]

Neither. It's being pushed as some sort of equalization process for baseball, but there is no evidence that a salary cap produces a flatter field. In reality, it's a money grab by billionaires who don't want to share with millionaires. 

[Guest]

Actually, i'll say that what I care about most in regards to the cap/floor is that the negotiations for it not result in another lockout.  That wasn't very fun last time.

Edited June 13 by bryzz0brist

[Rcal10]

5 minutes ago, bryzz0brist said:

Actually, i'll say that what I care about most in regards to the cap/floor is that the negotiations for it not result in another lockout.  That wasn't very fun last time.

I agree. And, tbh, I’m not sure owners will all agree to a salary cap with a floor and cap. I think too high a floor will have too many owners of low revenue teams not want it. A high floor won’t get votes from lower market teams. I’m honestly not sure anyone really wants a cap. 

[Geographyhater8888]

Just extend the season to 202 games to generate more revenue to offset any dips in player salary with a floor and a cap and everyone’s happy. 

Edited June 13 by Geographyhater8888