WOULD A SALARY CAP BE GOOD FOR BASEBALL?

In the wake of Hank Steinbrenner's insane spending spree, Milwaukee Brewers owner Mark Attanasio voiced his concern over competitive balance in the game by wondering aloud whether baseball should impose a salary cap. After all, the Yankees have spent $420 million this offseason alone, and no other team can afford to do that. Personally, I think a salary cap could work, but only if done differently from almost all other sports.

Say Major League Baseball set a hard cap at something like $150 million and set a minimum as well. That way, teams like the Marlins would be forced to spend a certain amount of money on players, and new owners would know at least how much money they would need to set aside for player salaries. If the cap was $150 million, and the minimum was $50 million, there would be more competitive balance in the league, without upsetting the distinction between the big market clubs and the small market teams.

The Yankees and Tigers were the only two teams in baseball that had to pay the luxury tax last season, because each team exceeded the $155 million limit set by Major League Baseball. Over the past six years (since the cap began), the Yankees have paid over $148 million, over 90% of all the luxury tax money collected by MLB.

The problem is that there are no real consequences for exceeding the luxury tax threshold. Sure teams need to pay more, but only the teams with enough money that a little bit more doesn't make a difference. Bud Selig needs to abolish the luxury tax and set up a league minimum and a hard cap.

Not only would this keep small market teams more competitive, it would also help curb the ridiculous size of players' contracts. For the most part, though, a cap like this wouldn't be that big a deal to most teams.

If a salary cap was set at $150 million only one team, the Yankees, would be over it (based on last season's opening day salaries). With a $50 million minimum, only the Pirates, A's, Rays, and Marlins would need to increase payroll, and three of those four would need to add less than $7 million.

Not only would this keep salaries down, help smaller market teams without compromising the integrity of the game, and add more emphasis on smart signings by general managers (instead of just throwing money around), it would also keep stingy owners from selling off all their good players. Owners like Jeffrey Loria of the Florida Marlins would be forced to spend at least $50 million on his team, or sell them to someone who would. If it does nothing else, this idea would at least get Loria out of baseball, so it can't be all bad, right?