Right upfront, I should say that I am not a big baseball fan. It is growing on me, yet every post season I find myself questioning why there is no talk of a salary cap. As a casual fan and outside observer, the introduction of a salary cap seems to be the best thing for baseball.
The main argument is: money does not buy you championships. Obviously, throwing money at pre-existing talent doesn't necessarily work out. The New York Yankees (who have a business model of "Can't beat 'em? Buy 'em!") have won just one World Series in the past decade. Similarly, the 2012 Boston Red Sox had the third highest payroll in baseball and had a disaster of a season. So sure, you can make the argument that money doesn't guarantee a thing.
However, take a look at this year's post season. From the National League you have the Cardinals, Braves, Nationals, Reds, and Giants. From the American League: the Orioles, Rangers, Yankees, Tigers, Athletics. Of those ten teams, five of them (or 50%) have a payroll that is in Major League's top ten highest (the Yankees, Giants, Cardinals, Rangers, and Tigers all spent over $100 million). Go back last year to the 2011 post season featuring the Yankees, Tigers, Rangers, Rays, Cardinals, Brewers, Diamondbacks, and Phillies. Of that list, the Yankees, Tigers, Cardinals, and Phillies (again, 50%) were in the top ten highest payrolls. All of those teams spent over $100 million.
In fact, this post season - regardless of who wins the Orioles/Yankees or Cardinals/Nationals series - every single match up will feature a team in the top ten highest payrolls. This is also the first time
since 1993 in which only one of the teams with the top five highest
payrolls made the playoffs (Yankees). Dating back to 2000, there has
always been a minimum of two.
In Major League Baseball, the disparity between highest payroll and lowest payroll is dumbfounding. The New York Yankees have the highest at a whopping $192 million. The San Diego Padres have the lowest at $55 million. That is a gap of almost $140 million! Teams that regularly spend over $90 million have the highest chance of making the playoffs and winning the World Series.
Here is how the last twenty World Series winners break down financially:
2011 - St. Louis Cardinals: $105 million (11th highest)
2010 - San Francisco Giants: $97 million (10th highest)
2009 - New York Yankees: $201 million (1st)
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies: $98 million (13th)
2007 - Boston Red Sox: $143 million (2nd)
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals: $88 million (11th)
2005 - Chicago White Sox: $73 million (13th)
2004 - Boston Red Sox: $125 million (2nd)
2003 - Florida Marlins: $63 million (20th)
2002 - Anaheim Angels: $61 million (15th)
2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks: $81 million (8th)
2000 - New York Yankees: $92 million (1st)
1999 - New York Yankees: $89 million (1st)
1998 - New York Yankees: $64 million (2nd)
1997 - Florida Marlins: $48 million (7th)
1996 - New York Yankees: $53 million (1st)
1995 - Atlanta Braves: $46 million (3rd)
1993 - Toronto Blue Jays: $43 million (1st)
1992 - Toronto Blue Jays: $44 million (1st)
1991 - Minnesota Twins: $23 million (13th)
Reflect on that for a second. Teams that were in the top 30% financially won 70% of the World Series dating back to 1991. Teams in the top 50% financially won 95%. Only one team that had a payroll in the lower half of the spectrum has won a World Series in the past twenty-one years.
Frankly, it really is hard to argue that the more money you spend, the better your odds. Only one team in the past twenty years has won a World Series with a payroll in the bottom half. In the anomaly year - in which the Marlins won the Series despite the 10th lowest payroll at $63 million - eleven teams were spending over $92 million. The disparity between the 11th highest and the 20th highest was $30 million. In 2003 - which consisted of the Marlins, Cubs, Braves, Giants, Yankees, Twins, Red Sox, and A's - four teams (again, 50% of the post season make-up) spent over $100 million.
Money doesn't guarantee championships, but it certainly makes it a hell of a lot easier. It is a pretty safe bet that if your team does not have money, you're not going anywhere. When you consistently have 50% of the post season teams coming from the top 30% of payrolls, something is wrong.
As it continues to lag behind the NFL in popularity, I have to wonder why there isn't at least more discussion about the possibility of bringing a salary cap to baseball. Sure, the money doesn't guarantee anything. Sure, the fans might want to deny that it matters. The numbers, however, tell a slightly different story. Perhaps baseball is the perfect metaphor for modern America: the more money you have, the better your odds. It is not impossible to "climb the ladder," it is just incredibly unlikely.
I say this all as a die-hard sports fan but a casual baseball fan. So baseball fans: you disagree? Let me hear the argument in favor of the current system. My only question is: do you think it should at least be a topic of discussion?
