Batting Around: Does MLB need a salary cap?

Throughout the offseason the CBS Sports MLB experts will bring you a weekly Batting Around roundtable, breaking down pretty much anything. The latest news, a historical question, thoughts about the future of baseball, all sorts of stuff. Last week we debated Bo Bichette's future (he since signed with the Mets). This week we're going to tackle a salary cap.

Does baseball need a salary cap?

R.J. Anderson: No.

Matt Snyder: I've been a staunch defender of the MLB system for years and I'm still not willing to say a salary cap would be a reasonable solution, but I understand the push for it at this point. The optics look bad. I get it. When you have teams spending five times as much as others, it definitely looks bad. I've gotten to the point now where every time we head into an offseason I'm basically praying the Dodgers don't add anyone because I don't feel like dealing with the mass hysteria from a large portion of the MLB fan base. 

I continue to believe the bigger issue is the number of owners pocketing revenue-sharing money and the idea that small-market teams can't compete. The Brewers had the best record in baseball last regular season. The Guardians keep making the playoffs. The Rays contend often. 

I am open to hearing arguments that would better level the playing field, but a hard salary cap at something like $200 million would do nothing but take money away from the players and keep it in the hands of the owners, who are the problem in the first place. A salary floor obviously comes with a cap, but with three years of pre-arbitration, are you forcing teams to spend money for the sake of spending it just to get to the floor, possibly then playing a washed-up veteran over a pre-arbitration guy who could develop into a great player? 

There aren't good answers.

Mike Axisa: I mean, it clearly doesn't, right? Record revenues, terrific attendance, great television/streaming ratings, etc. The league and its teams are making money hand over fist. MLB and the owners have done a good job framing the salary cap fight as a competitive balance thing, but don't fall for it. The owners want a cap because it will keep player salaries down and redirect those dollars into their pockets, and also boost their franchise values. Don't believe them when they say otherwise.

That all said, there is clearly a revenue disparity problem. It doesn't matter how many stats you put in front of people showing that MLB's competitive balance is pretty good, actually. If fans feel like their team has no chance, that's bad. A salary cap won't fix that though. The cheap owners will still be cheap because it's in their DNA, and the salary floor that comes with a cap won't be high enough to change their behavior. I'm not saying it will be easy, but you can address the revenue disparity problem with adjustments to the revenue sharing program. One with rules that guarantee revenue sharing money is spent on the MLB roster rather than just "we'll spend it on players, trust us 😉."

Dayn Perry: No, and the NFL comparisons that typically accompany calls for a cap in MLB are completely daft. You simply cannot compare the two leagues. MLB is most reliant on local revenues, while the NFL is essentially a national-revenue league. The NFL plays 10% off the regular-season games that MLB does and benefits from the small-sample randomness that flows from such a schedule. Ditto their one-and-done playoff format. Owners want a cap because they want to tamp down on labor costs, full stop. It has nothing to do with parity, which MLB already has plenty of.