1. Should players have a salary cap

2.  Will MLB ever have a Salary Cap? Not while Bud Selig holds the commissioner's chair. In 1994, owner's were trying to get a salary cap into place with the new collective bargaining agreement. They saw it as a way to improve player salaries and create more competitive balance throughout the league. They said, with the new plan, that they expected from the average player salary to jump from 1.2 mil in '94 to 2.6 mil in '01. Players saw it differently, and viewed it as a way for the owners to cheat them out of money they could make in free agency. A lot of this was due to the MLBPA's distrust with then acting commissioner, now full-time, Bud Selig. Selig and Jerry Reinsdorf were involved with collusion, that caused the loss of $280 mil in players salaries.

3. First, the reality is that MLB is never going to have a salary cap because the MLBPA, unlike, say, the NFLPA, is an actual functioning union and not a curtseying valet to ownership. Second, the current run of unprecedented labor peace in MLB is largely because of the fact that owners have finally realized they're never going to get the hard cap they once pursued with a self-immolating sense of mission.

4.  New York Yankees $228,995,945  Los Angeles Dodgers $216,302,909  Philadelphia $159,578,214  Boston $158,967,286  Detroit $149,046,844  San Francisco $142,180,333  Los Angeles Angels $142,165,250  Texas $127,197,575  Chicago White Sox $124,065,277  Toronto $118,244,039  St. Louis $116,702,085  Washington $112,431,770  Cincinnati $110,565,728  Chicago Cubs $104,150,726  Because they all spend over 100 million unlike every one else

5.  I am against the salary cap because even though they are getting paid ridicules amount there being paid by the owner so the more the owner gives means how much the owner values a player and if they have the money lat the owner spend as much as they want without rules