Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
The general argument made against the cap is that it should be a free market and they're should be no minimum or maximum a team should be allowed to spend.
Maybe so, but that makes a lot more sense to me than revenue sharing where-as jsarno points out-you're punishing teams that have earned it. A lot of teams with lower payrolls keep their payrolls low not because they have no choice but because they know if they don't they'll no longer get money funneled down to them to the top teams.
This was a huge reason the Expos were dissolved and ulimately resurrected as the Washington Nationals. Top paying teams realized they were essentially covering the entire payroll of another team instead of spending money on their own teams.
|
But you hold the other teams accountable if there is a cap in place. If the royals made poor decisions, then so be it if there was a cap. If not...how can a team with say a 30 mil income and team salary compete with the likes of the Yankees that can spend 300 mil without losing a dime?