PDA

View Full Version : Super Rich Red Sox owner calls salary cap



#27in2007
02-18-2009, 03:07 PM
John Henry addressed the need for an "enlightened" salary cap. Whatever that means. Maybe that means that the limit should be no more than what he spends each year. He didn't mention if ridiculous posting fees should be included in salary cap figures, such as the 50 million dollar posting fee for Dice-K.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2009/news/story?id=3916048

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 03:11 PM
This isn't really news considering how long he's called for one. Why someone's criticizing a big market owner for asking for a salary cap is beyond me...

#27in2007
02-18-2009, 03:13 PM
i wasn't criticizing him, but the article was implying that he cries about salary cap when he misses out on a player that the yanks end up getting... he is the one that made the news by talking about it... i am just posting it for discussion.... whether you agree or disagree, is the point...

yankeemule4life
02-18-2009, 03:29 PM
I simply consider the source.

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 03:58 PM
i wasn't criticizing him, but the article was implying that he cries about salary cap when he misses out on a player that the yanks end up getting... he is the one that made the news by talking about it... i am just posting it for discussion.... whether you agree or disagree, is the point...

Sorry, I must have missed where you stated an opinion on the salary cap. I can only find your opinion on the Red Sox and John Henry.

I'm all for a salary cap and a salary minimum.

Sportfan
02-18-2009, 04:20 PM
This isn't really news considering how long he's called for one. Why someone's criticizing a big market owner for asking for a salary cap is beyond me...

yea he's been saying this for some time now

jtchilln
02-18-2009, 04:21 PM
I'm a RedSox fan and I think most fans in baseball agree that a Salary cap is needed.

I know Yankee fans are going to start crying "sour grapes" but since 2003 when Henry became owner the Boston RedSox have been much more succesful than New York.

I also believe that Boston thinks it has one of the better player development teams and feel pretty strongly that they can develop home grown talent that can contribute at a high level in the major leagues.

drew_ellis_23
02-18-2009, 04:26 PM
I am a Mariner fan and agree there should be a cap. A minimum as well so teams like Oakland and Florida can't keep dumping salaries. Look at the NFL. Pretty balanced, new teams competing every year. Baseball is pretty good but a cap couldn't hurt. Arod, Manny, and Pujols are great players, but no one player should make more than an entire team. 25 million a year is terrible. A cap would solve alot of issues.

lana213
02-18-2009, 04:31 PM
Yes, John Henry wants a cap, all owners want a cap (including the Yanks and Mets). What John Henry doesn't say is that he wants to spilt all revenues equally. So, he wants fixed costs but he doesn't want to share the wealth. Does this surprise anyone? Do you really think Mr. Henry would support a new system that would share his hard earned revenues with the other owners and one that would cause a drastic decrease in the value of his flagship franchise? Nothing new here.

Raidaz4Life
02-18-2009, 04:32 PM
I'm a RedSox fan and I think most fans in baseball agree that a Salary cap is needed.

I know Yankee fans are going to start crying "sour grapes" but since 2003 when Henry became owner the Boston RedSox have been much more succesful than New York.

I also believe that Boston thinks it has one of the better player development teams and feel pretty strongly that they can develop home grown talent that can contribute at a high level in the major leagues.

no kidding I don't think the Red Sox feel they lose anything by there being a salary cap, they are extremely smart and resourceful with their money

DieHardColtsfan
02-18-2009, 04:40 PM
Players Union Just Can not allow this, correct me if im wrong?? Other then this year, Free Agency has been a very lucrative time period for players, something to look forward to at times... The players want to get paid... The Owners got to put the money back into the teams.

gotcabrera10
02-18-2009, 04:44 PM
Ok so when this amazing streak the RedSox have reached in drafting such premier talent has run dry or even just decreases enough there going to want a big named free agent to fill a spot that wont be filled by a prospect.

The success of drafting such great talent like the Sox have in the past few years is a lot luck and not just good talent evaluators. THIS is what i hate about the RedSox orginization. Not there fans or players or crappy old stadium. I hate the fact that they can get lucky for a while and the upper ownership gets bold and makes statements like this.

Would Henry have been saying this if we hadn't stolen Tex from him at the last few hours??? Bitter old geaser.

pjbosox
02-18-2009, 04:49 PM
Sorry, I must have missed where you stated an opinion on the salary cap. I can only find your opinion on the Red Sox and John Henry.

I'm all for a salary cap and a salary minimum.

That worked for the NFL and NHL, so why not try it in the MLB!


Players Union Just Can not allow this, correct me if im wrong?? Other then this year, Free Agency has been a very lucrative time period for players, something to look forward to at times... The players want to get paid... The Owners got to put the money back into the teams.

Why not put a salary cap for the owners too! That way, maybe we could get tickets at a reasonable price.

Salary cap for both players AND owners : I wish!

jtchilln
02-18-2009, 04:50 PM
right, it would have to be collectively bargained and their is a good chance the union will strike if the owners make a hard push for this. Players and Agents want a basic free trade and would hate a cap. This would get real ugly before it got better.

the big problem the owners like john henry and the steinbrenners will have with a cap is the distribution of revenues. Both the Sox and Yanks own the TV rights to their games and make HUGE amount of money selling off the advertising rights during these games and on the Yes network and Nesn. If they went to a salary cap like the NFL all teams revenues from TV rights will go into one big pool and diveded amongst all the other teams. Teams that own their rights would lose millions of dollars.

jtchilln
02-18-2009, 04:57 PM
Ok so when this amazing streak the RedSox have reached in drafting such premier talent has run dry or even just decreases enough there going to want a big named free agent to fill a spot that wont be filled by a prospect.

The success of drafting such great talent like the Sox have in the past few years is a lot luck and not just good talent evaluators. THIS is what i hate about the RedSox orginization. Not there fans or players or crappy old stadium. I hate the fact that they can get lucky for a while and the upper ownership gets bold and makes statements like this.

Would Henry have been saying this if we hadn't stolen Tex from him at the last few hours??? Bitter old geaser.

I knew it was coming the old "sour grapes" reply. Like I said earlier, the RedSox have been more succesful than the Yanks and pretty much any other team since 2003 when Henry took over the team. I know it's hard for you to take your "Yankee Blinders" off for a minute and look at the big picture instead of what is happening with your team.

MVPedroia
02-18-2009, 04:57 PM
good....Yanks have far more money than the 2nd closest in payroll.

downsos
02-18-2009, 05:00 PM
Players Union Just Can not allow this, correct me if im wrong?? Other then this year, Free Agency has been a very lucrative time period for players, something to look forward to at times... The players want to get paid... The Owners got to put the money back into the teams.

But, some owners don't have the money to get the players that the yankees, and red sox can. If it was just a matter of putting money into a team, then every team would be doing it.

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 05:11 PM
Would Henry have been saying this if we hadn't stolen Tex from him at the last few hours??? Bitter old geaser.

He's been saying it for five years, it has nothing to do with Tex.

gotcabrera10
02-18-2009, 05:15 PM
Ok so when this amazing streak the RedSox have reached in drafting such premier talent has run dry or even just decreases enough there going to want a big named free agent to fill a spot that wont be filled by a prospect.

The success of drafting such great talent like the Sox have in the past few years is a lot luck and not just good talent evaluators. THIS is what i hate about the RedSox orginization. Not there fans or players or crappy old stadium. I hate the fact that they can get lucky for a while and the upper ownership gets bold and makes statements like this.

Would Henry have been saying this if we hadn't stolen Tex from him at the last few hours??? Bitter old geaser.

I knew it was coming the old "sour grapes" reply. Like I said earlier, the RedSox have been more succesful than the Yanks and pretty much any other team since 2003 when Henry took over the team. I know it's hard for you to take your "Yankee Blinders" off for a minute and look at the big picture instead of what is happening with your team.

First of all don't give me that sour grapes garbage. The situation pretains MOSTLY to the Yankees because they spend so much so I can bring up the Yankees all I want.

2nd of all this comment has come up from Henry before, you wanna know when? When we got Arod in 2003, again right after your orgininaztion failed to reel in the big fish. You don't have the right to make an account on this site and make posts about the "sour" attitude of Yankee fans.

We don't need the insight of a poster who's just trying to make a name for himself by trying to sound righteous.

gotcabrera10
02-18-2009, 05:16 PM
He's been saying it for five years, it has nothing to do with Tex.

If the Redsox payroll had increased over 20 million this offseason by signing Tex he would have thought twice about making this comment.

bloodhawk
02-18-2009, 05:25 PM
what;s the number for the cap he wants...let me guess....between 110-120M :rolleyes:

iced_earth4
02-18-2009, 05:41 PM
[QUOTE=jtchilln;8417609]

First of all don't give me that sour grapes garbage. The situation pretains MOSTLY to the Yankees because they spend so much so I can bring up the Yankees all I want.

2nd of all this comment has come up from Henry before, you wanna know when? When we got Arod in 2003, again right after your orgininaztion failed to reel in the big fish. You don't have the right to make an account on this site and make posts about the "sour" attitude of Yankee fans.

We don't need the insight of a poster who's just trying to make a name for himself by trying to sound righteous.

Congratulations!!!! I didn't know you signed a-rod. Why would you be in here arguing. Shouldn't you be at Spring Training???

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 05:46 PM
If the Redsox payroll had increased over 20 million this offseason by signing Tex he would have thought twice about making this comment.

The Red Sox could have added Tex and still cut payroll from the 4th highest in baseball. It has nothing to do with that.

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 05:47 PM
what;s the number for the cap he wants...let me guess....between 110-120M :rolleyes:

Now you're criticizing him for things he's never said?

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 05:50 PM
Yes, John Henry wants a cap, all owners want a cap (including the Yanks and Mets). What John Henry doesn't say is that he wants to spilt all revenues equally. So, he wants fixed costs but he doesn't want to share the wealth. Does this surprise anyone? Do you really think Mr. Henry would support a new system that would share his hard earned revenues with the other owners and one that would cause a drastic decrease in the value of his flagship franchise? Nothing new here.

When have the Yankees ever said they wanted a cap? lol

jtchilln
02-18-2009, 05:51 PM
HAHAHA...Yah, how has that Arod signing turned out for the Yankees now? Who has been the big winner in that deal? The best thing that happened to the RedSox is the union stepping in and blocking that deal. If that deal went through Jon Lester would be the Ace of the Texas Rangers right now. What exactly has Arod brought you guys since going to NY?

Hate to tell you if Tex signed with Boston this year I'm pretty sure the Red Sox payroll would be a little lower than last year. Why not take a look at the contracts that came off the payroll (Manny, Schilling, Clement and Vtek new lower salary just to name a few) so how do you come to that idea that their payroll would have gone up. By not signing Texeira they were able to lock up some of their other players long term.

Sour Grapes....Hardly!! 2 WS for Boston in the short tenure of John Henry and Co. None for Arod and your yankees during that time.

downsos
02-18-2009, 05:51 PM
If the Redsox payroll had increased over 20 million this offseason by signing Tex he would have thought twice about making this comment.

Yeah, he's calling for it because he missed out on Tex even though what he is asking for would make it tougher for him to get a player like Tex.:rolleyes:

redbird89
02-18-2009, 05:56 PM
It would be nice to have a cap. Nothing egregious, but something most teams already fit under. $120 million?

Would that make the Red Sox owner happy?

Actually, most teams could probably fit in there around $100 million without having to shed too much salary.

If you're gonna have a max cap, you need a minimum also.

lana213
02-18-2009, 06:03 PM
When have the Yankees ever said they wanted a cap? lol

Didn't say they said it, I stated they would want it. Owners of business want fixed costs, get it? or are you too busy laughing. Now, show me where Mr. Henry agrees to share all revenues? Oh wait, you can not. You know why, b/c he doesn't. So it is easy to say something disingenuous like Mr. Henry b/c you know it won't happen. It is also silly of Red Sox fans to want a cap when they are beneficiaries of the current system.

Question for Pro Cap Red Sox fans -- how many World Series titles do you think they would have if a hard cap were introduced prior to 2004 season? Still laughing grenadine?

Allabouthephils
02-18-2009, 06:04 PM
The fact that John Henry, owner of the most successful baseball franchise in the last decade, is calling for a salary cap should be telling....

But, a cap inhibits the other side of baseball that's not on the field... The Yankees spend the money they do because they have a great business model.... So do the Red Sox... They market well, they sell out, they have tradition, and their merchandise sales are through the roof year in and year out... However, it doesn't always make for success during any one season... That's obvious... You can't take capitalism out of baseball... It would just be bailing out the teams that have bad business models... Pittsburgh, Kansas City, and Seattle are all examples... They should be spending their money more efficiently and trying to win through the draft...

It can be done... Tampa Bay, Florida anyone ??? They have something figured out down there....

gotcabrera10
02-18-2009, 06:10 PM
HAHAHA...Yah, how has that Arod signing turned out for the Yankees now? Who has been the big winner in that deal? The best thing that happened to the RedSox is the union stepping in and blocking that deal. If that deal went through Jon Lester would be the Ace of the Texas Rangers right now. What exactly has Arod brought you guys since going to NY?

Hate to tell you if Tex signed with Boston this year I'm pretty sure the Red Sox payroll would be a little lower than last year. Why not take a look at the contracts that came off the payroll (Manny, Schilling, Clement and Vtek new lower salary just to name a few) so how do you come to that idea that their payroll would have gone up. By not signing Texeira they were able to lock up some of their other players long term.

Sour Grapes....Hardly!! 2 WS for Boston in the short tenure of John Henry and Co. None for Arod and your yankees during that time.

It doesn't matter if the payroll has increased or stayed the same, if the Redsox had signed Tex and Henry had made this comment the signing would have been spat back all over him by the media.

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 06:15 PM
Didn't say they said it, I stated they would want it. Owners of business want fixed costs, get it? or are you too busy laughing. Now, show me where Mr. Henry agrees to share all revenues? Oh wait, you can not. You know why, b/c he doesn't. So it is easy to say something disingenuous like Mr. Henry b/c you know it won't happen. It is also silly of Red Sox fans to want a cap when they are beneficiaries of the current system.

Question for Pro Cap Red Sox fans -- how many World Series titles do you think they would have if a hard cap were introduced prior to 2004 season? Still laughing grenadine?

The Yankees want a salary cap? Sorry, but I didn't bother listening to whatever :bla: you had to say after that gem.

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 06:16 PM
It doesn't matter if the payroll has increased or stayed the same, if the Redsox had signed Tex and Henry had made this comment the signing would have been spat back all over him by the media.

I don't think you get what others have been saying. Henry has been asking for a salary cap for five years now, it has nothing to do with Tex. And even if he signed Tex, the Red Sox salary would be about the same it is now because they probably wouldn't have added Penny, Smoltz, Saito and Baldelli.

gotcabrera10
02-18-2009, 06:19 PM
Why? Their salary now is the same it would have been if they signed Tex.

So there wouldnt have been a 20 million dollar difference? Reread the wording of that question.

Super.
02-18-2009, 06:20 PM
Ok so when this amazing streak the RedSox have reached in drafting such premier talent has run dry or even just decreases enough there going to want a big named free agent to fill a spot that wont be filled by a prospect.

The success of drafting such great talent like the Sox have in the past few years is a lot luck and not just good talent evaluators. THIS is what i hate about the RedSox orginization. Not there fans or players or crappy old stadium. I hate the fact that they can get lucky for a while and the upper ownership gets bold and makes statements like this.

Would Henry have been saying this if we hadn't stolen Tex from him at the last few hours??? Bitter old geaser.

John Henry has been saying this for a while

gotcabrera10
02-18-2009, 06:23 PM
^ ^ AND the redsox have had a far beyond great far system for a while. When that time runs dry do you really think an orginization with all that money is not gonna have a sky rocketing payroll??

Nothing lasts forever

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 06:24 PM
The fact that John Henry, owner of the most successful baseball franchise in the last decade, is calling for a salary cap should be telling....

But, a cap inhibits the other side of baseball that's not on the field... The Yankees spend the money they do because they have a great business model.... So do the Red Sox... They market well, they sell out, they have tradition, and their merchandise sales are through the roof year in and year out... However, it doesn't always make for success during any one season... That's obvious... You can't take capitalism out of baseball... It would just be bailing out the teams that have bad business models... Pittsburgh, Kansas City, and Seattle are all examples... They should be spending their money more efficiently and trying to win through the draft...

It can be done... Tampa Bay, Florida anyone ??? They have something figured out down there....

Putting a salary cap on baseball isn't taking the capitalism out of it, nor does it remove rewards for marketing well and doing good business. Teams would still gain differing revenues, in fact many small market teams would likely get greater revenues. But people aren't going to stop selling out Fenway Park every game because the team's salary isn't $130 million. As long as the team continues to put a good product on the field, people will show up to the games and buy the merchandise.

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 06:26 PM
^ ^ AND the redsox have had a far beyond great far system for a while. When that time runs dry do you really think an orginization with all that money is not gonna have a sky rocketing payroll??

Nothing lasts forever

Come on man. The Red Sox don't have a good farm system by chance, they have a good farm system because Epstein puts a large emphasis on scouting.

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 06:28 PM
So there wouldnt have been a 20 million dollar difference? Reread the wording of that question.

Correct, there wouldn't have been a $20 million difference. It would have been more like a $5 million difference off their current salary because they went out and signed Penny, Smoltz, Saito and Baldelli after they missed out on Tex.

Enough about the Red Sox now. This thread is supposed to be about a salary cap, what do you think about having one?

gotcabrera10
02-18-2009, 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by Allabouthephils
The fact that John Henry, owner of the most successful baseball franchise in the last decade, is calling for a salary cap should be telling....

But, a cap inhibits the other side of baseball that's not on the field... The Yankees spend the money they do because they have a great business model.... So do the Red Sox... They market well, they sell out, they have tradition, and their merchandise sales are through the roof year in and year out... However, it doesn't always make for success during any one season... That's obvious... You can't take capitalism out of baseball... It would just be bailing out the teams that have bad business models... Pittsburgh, Kansas City, and Seattle are all examples... They should be spending their money more efficiently and trying to win through the draft...

It can be done... Tampa Bay, Florida anyone ??? They have something figured out down there....

This is a good post but come on man we all know the Florida Marlins over achieved last year and as for the Rays, the only thing they figured out is that when you suck for so long you stockpile top 5 blue chip prospects and eventually you get lucky and they all wind up on the field at the same time.

papipapsmanny
02-18-2009, 06:32 PM
i believe 140 million would be a fair number, and the minimum around 30 or so million

everone has a 110 million of cap space to work with

really the only team that would have a problem with those numbers are the yanks and marlins

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 06:34 PM
This is a good post but come on man we all know the Florida Marlins over achieved last year and as for the Rays, the only thing they figured out is that when you suck for so long you stockpile top 5 blue chip prospects and eventually you get lucky and they all wind up on the field at the same time.

You're not giving the Rays nearly as much credit as they deserve. What about Carlos Pena, Shields, Garza, Iwamura, Barlett and Percival? They Rays do more than draft well.

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 06:38 PM
i believe 140 million would be a fair number, and the minimum around 30 or so million

everone has a 110 million of cap space to work with

really the only team that would have a problem with those numbers are the yanks and marlins

I'd set the cap at $100 million (that would effect the top 3rd in salary). As for the minimum, I don't think $30 million is enough. We want fans to be in the seats. I'd set the minimum at $50 million. The only team that would have to add more than $7 million in that scenario would be the Marlins.

nithanyo
02-18-2009, 06:47 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/story/2009/02/18/baseball-bosox-cap.html


Why doesnt MLB just put it in? I mean the somewhat free spending red sox cant even hold their ground against the Yankees spending. Practically every team wants a salary Cap. Id say only the Yankees are by themselves. Maybe the Chicago teams, Mets and maybe the Angels might go against it. But from the way i see it 26 of the 30 teams want a cap. ITs not bad for the players as well seeing that a salary cap would eliminate the rule where teams would give up draft picks since the playing field would be more fair.

Grenadine
02-18-2009, 07:00 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/story/2009/02/18/baseball-bosox-cap.html


Why doesnt MLB just put it in? I mean the somewhat free spending red sox cant even hold their ground against the Yankees spending. Practically every team wants a salary Cap. Id say only the Yankees are by themselves. Maybe the Chicago teams, Mets and maybe the Angels might go against it. But from the way i see it 26 of the 30 teams want a cap. ITs not bad for the players as well seeing that a salary cap would eliminate the rule where teams would give up draft picks since the playing field would be more fair.

Because MLB is the player's association's *****. That's why we don't have legit testing for PED's and that's why we won't have a salary cap any time soon. God forbid MLB prevent players from getting their $20 million salaries.

BRADY4MVP
02-18-2009, 07:00 PM
John Henry addressed the need for an "enlightened" salary cap. Whatever that means. Maybe that means that the limit should be no more than what he spends each year. He didn't mention if ridiculous posting fees should be included in salary cap figures, such as the 50 million dollar posting fee for Dice-K.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2009/news/story?id=3916048

gee, wonder what team you like :rolleyes:

mlb certainly does need a salary cap

PINSTRIPES7
02-18-2009, 08:07 PM
You'll never sell a salary cap to the player's union. I'd shoot for a salary floor of,
say, $100 mil, and some higher luxury penalties for those that go over $200 mil, and hope like crazy that they go for it.

MooseWithFleas
02-18-2009, 08:08 PM
I pray there is never a salary cap in baseball

jtchilln
02-18-2009, 08:11 PM
If the owners try and get a salary cap they better be ready for a strike. Orza, Fehr and the rest of the Union heads would never let that happen. It might take the owners "locking out" the players. It would get really ugly!

CraigtheSoxFan
02-18-2009, 08:12 PM
i wasn't criticizing him, but the article was implying that he cries about salary cap when he misses out on a player that the yanks end up getting... he is the one that made the news by talking about it... i am just posting it for discussion.... whether you agree or disagree, is the point...
another yankee fan crying p.s mlb needs the cap so the yankees cant over spend

PINSTRIPES7
02-18-2009, 08:15 PM
One of the inherent problem with implementing a salary cap at this time is that the owners would be pocketing all of the revenue, just like in the old days when the elite baseball players in the world had to work in the off season. Let's face it, most, if not all, of the owners are money grubbing scumbags living vicariously off of their players.

BLooDShoT_GrK
02-18-2009, 08:19 PM
hes still bitter over the Yankees stealing Tex from under his nose

jtchilln
02-18-2009, 08:34 PM
difference between the Yankees' 2008 payroll and the Red Sox' 2008 payroll was $75,691,542, which in itself was larger than the total payrolls of 13 major league teams. Are the Red Sox really in the same category as the Yankees?

Adalbjorg
02-18-2009, 08:39 PM
hes still bitter over the Yankees stealing Tex from under his nose

It's incredible he knew five years ago that the Yankees would sign Tex when he first asked for a salary cap.

Sacco111
02-18-2009, 08:49 PM
You'll never sell a salary cap to the player's union. I'd shoot for a salary floor of,
say, $100 mil, and some higher luxury penalties for those that go over $200 mil, and hope like crazy that they go for it.

Those numbers are just silly. What is there...4 teams with payrolls over $100mm. If even that many?

I don't know what the answer is to the payroll discrepancy in MLB. The Marlins, who are major offenders of taking money from MLB and pocketing it, seem to compete every few years. So I'm not sure they are victims. I do know that small market teams cannot keep their home grown talent in the current system. I know this first hand being an Indians fan.

We compete by being smarter than you.

PINSTRIPES7
02-18-2009, 08:58 PM
Just because there are, as you say, 4 teams with payrolls over $100 (there are probably more, and probably a lot in the $80-$100 range, doesn't mean that those teams can't afford to pay out $100 mil for a floor. Baseball is lumped into 3 catagories, the haves, the have nots, and the WILL nots. If you're a have not, you have my sympathy, go into another business, if you're a will not, then you're a cheap miser who doesn't belong in the bigs. Don't forget the luxury money that these teams get, too. If you get luxury money from the Yanks and put it in your pocket instead of your team than shame on you.

PINSTRIPES7
02-18-2009, 09:01 PM
BTW there are 15 teams that paid out from $80 mil and above, with the Indians just below that. Of those 15 teams, 11 paid $100 mil and over with the Jays and Phils just under $100.

UNETOWNBAYAREA
02-18-2009, 09:05 PM
This all starts at the top. Quit feeding out big contracts.
IMO we do need a cap but with the way the MLBPA never uses common sense it will never happen.

Run Gardner Run
02-18-2009, 09:07 PM
Wonder if he would have said the same thing if Teixeira chose the Red Sox over the Yankees?

Adalbjorg
02-18-2009, 09:21 PM
Wonder if he would have said the same thing if Teixeira chose the Red Sox over the Yankees?

He HAS been saying the same thing for 5 years. Nice sig though. I can't believe even Yankees fans are showing love for Lars. Guess it's hard to ignore a talent like that though, regardless of what team you like.

papipapsmanny
02-18-2009, 09:25 PM
^^^ wow u really dont read anything do you??

1st 100 mill to low for a salary cap, id say anything from 115-135 mill would be acceptable

125 would be good, because at maximum a 25 man roster would average about 5 million a player, (obviously some will make more and others less) but salaries would be decreased which is what im for, as for owners pocketing the money, good maybe they would lower prices for us

I mean were ok with punishing 30 owners who are running a whole business under them, then defend tha players who get angry that they arent making 15 million a year for just playing a sport or game as a profession.

whitesoxfan83
02-18-2009, 09:25 PM
a salary cap is a bad idea for baseball. but if they are ever going to do it then there should be a minimum payroll as well.

ciaban
02-18-2009, 09:50 PM
no kidding I don't think the Red Sox feel they lose anything by there being a salary cap, they are extremely smart and resourceful with their money

you mean like with the signings of guys like Julio Lugo and that trade for Gagne? Genius

Adalbjorg
02-18-2009, 09:50 PM
Oh, I did not know you were banned from the Yankee page. Thats not what I meant at all. How would I know you are banned from the Yankee page, when I havent been around lately? Hmmm...

It's cool, don't worry about it man. It's hard to get angry at a Yankees fan with a Lars sig. I really respect you for being objective enough to give props to a Red Sox prospect.

jmaest
02-18-2009, 09:55 PM
It's cool, don't worry about it man. It's hard to get angry at a Yankees fan with a Lars sig. I really respect you for being objective enough to give props to a Red Sox prospect.

Exactly. He's being the bigger man. Actually most of us believe Lars Anderson may just be the greatest 1B baseball has seen in a very long time. It's very hard to project prospects but in the Yankee OT thread people are suggesting a career average of .340/40/150 for Lars.

To be quite honest, and I have no problem admitting this, I feel a little inadequate having Teixeira knowing the Red Sox have Lars waiting in the wings.

oak2455
02-18-2009, 09:57 PM
Wait this is the same guy that Dismantled the Marlins after winning a Championship?? Same guy:confused: tell John Henry Shut the **** Up!!!!:cry::cry::cry:

Run Gardner Run
02-18-2009, 09:57 PM
Exactly. He's being the bigger man. Actually most of us believe Lars Anderson may just be the greatest 1B baseball has seen in a very long time. It's very hard to project prospects but in the Yankee OT thread people are suggesting a career average of .440/70/260 for Lars.

To be quite honest, and I have no problem admitting this, I feel a little inadequate having Teixeira knowing the Red Sox have Lars waiting in the wings.

Dont be modest...Fixed the stats

downsos
02-18-2009, 09:58 PM
I would love for there to be a cap. But there needs to be a minimum for it to work.

jmaest
02-18-2009, 09:58 PM
Dont be modest...Fixed the stats

:clap: Thank you. As always I need to defer to your statistical superiority.

jmaest
02-18-2009, 09:59 PM
I would love for there to be a cap. But there needs to be a minimum for it to work.

And being a socialist/communist state wouldn't hurt. A cap is unconstitutional. It would HAVE to be agreed upon by both parties. It's simply not going to happen.

And, quite frankly, a cap is not the appropriate response to a steroid scandal.

oak2455
02-18-2009, 10:01 PM
And being a socialist/communist state wouldn't hurt. A cap is unconstitutional. It would HAVE to be agreed upon by both parties. It's simply not going to happen.

And, quite frankly, a cap is not the appropriate response to a steroid scandal.

Totally agree the Players Union is the strongest union out there!!!:)

Adalbjorg
02-18-2009, 10:02 PM
Exactly. He's being the bigger man. Actually most of us believe Lars Anderson may just be the greatest 1B baseball has seen in a very long time. It's very hard to project prospects but in the Yankee OT thread people are suggesting a career average of .340/40/150 for Lars.

To be quite honest, and I have no problem admitting this, I feel a little inadequate having Teixeira knowing the Red Sox have Lars waiting in the wings.

I can tell you're being sarcastic. But I guess not every Yankees fan appreciates Lars. I'm fine with just RGR, I didn't think any Yankees fans would like him, let alone claim he'll be the best 1B in baseball. That's pretty big of him.

ciaban
02-18-2009, 10:20 PM
Players Union Just Can not allow this, correct me if im wrong?? Other then this year, Free Agency has been a very lucrative time period for players, something to look forward to at times... The players want to get paid... The Owners got to put the money back into the teams.

All right what you guys need to understand is these owners are all multi- billionaires though this is a business and you shouldn't hand out stupid contracts, these guys get into owning a sports team for the love of sports, it's a hobby for these guys, and lets e honest you don't go to Dodger stadium, or Fenway, or Telephone Park (S.F. the name changes like every week to a different phone service, don't the giants know there are disconnection fees when you end your service with one carrier so quick) to watch the owners or G.M.'s, you could argue the fruits of their work, but not them they come to watch the players and these guys do deserve a piece of the pie they are earning for these owners.

That being said baseball should institue both a hard and soft cap, you go over 110 mil your taxed, but yo can't go over 150, maybe change the draft pick loss signing rule, because that's the only way I can see the Union giving into this.

People keep talking about how a minimum cap is needed so you don't end up getting the clippers of baseball, the thing is you can't make a person spend their money, also this is how a small market team will end up getting saddled under a big contract to an under performing fan favorite pretty boy who is mediocre at the position and with the bat, (no that wasn't a stab at Jeter, he isn't a pretty boy i don't think he is that cute, but you can take it that way if you want to) if you guys wanted to do a thing where teams under min cap would loose a share of the revenue sharing they would have received(like getting 5mil instead of 8 or 10 mil) that would be more fair, making people spend money is just Un-American, and in these economic times we all need to tighten the belt(cliche)

jmaest
02-18-2009, 10:27 PM
All right what you guys need to understand is these owners are all multi- billionaires though this is a business and you shouldn't hand out stupid contracts, these guys get into owning a sports team for the love of sports, it's a hobby for these guys, and lets e honest you don't go to Dodger stadium, or Fenway, or Telephone Park (S.F. the name changes like every week to a different phone service, don't the giants know there are disconnection fees when you end your service with one carrier so quick) to watch the owners or G.M.'s, you could argue the fruits of their work, but not them they come to watch the players and these guys do deserve a piece of the pie they are earning for these owners.

That being said baseball should institue both a hard and soft cap, you go over 110 mil your taxed, but yo can't go over 150, maybe change the draft pick loss signing rule, because that's the only way I can see the Union giving into this.

People keep talking about how a minimum cap is needed so you don't end up getting the clippers of baseball, the thing is you can't make a person spend their money, also this is how a small market team will end up getting saddled under a big contract to an under performing fan favorite pretty boy who is mediocre at the position and with the bat, (no that wasn't a stab at Jeter, he isn't a pretty boy i don't think he is that cute, but you can take it that way if you want to) if you guys wanted to do a thing where teams under min cap would loose a share of the revenue sharing they would have received(like getting 5mil instead of 8 or 10 mil) that would be more fair, making people spend money is just Un-American, and in these economic times we all need to tighten the belt(cliche)

Why can't you? If you can impose a cap in a free spending, capitalist market why couldn't you impose a floor?

As you said, sports is a business. Being a business means that it is subject to the basic principles of a US capitalist economy which means a salary cap is essentially an illegal principle.

jmaest
02-18-2009, 10:54 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't see an opinion on the salary cap in there. If you have one, I'd like to hear it.

I'll restate since it seems that everything with you always somehow gets deleted.

I would have no problem with a salary cap so long as a floor would be put in place as well. Salary caps don't work. What makes the NFL successful has very little to do with the salary cap and everything to do with Television.

A salary floor, however, makes all the sense in the world.

PINSTRIPES7
02-18-2009, 10:57 PM
What's up with all of the deleted msgs?

BeantownBill
02-18-2009, 11:21 PM
" One of the inherent problem with implementing a salary cap at this time is that the owners would be pocketing all of the revenue, just like in the old days when the elite baseball players in the world had to work in the off season. Let's face it, most, if not all, of the owners are money grubbing scumbags living vicariously off of their players."

This is a cop out, and one I've seen many times over by Yankee fans. Look past your hate of the Red Sox organization and see that what he's saying is not only fair, it's right for everyone involved. Teams would be competitive based on organizational decisions as it pertains to drafting, stockpiling, and developing talent. Trades. Money spent in free agency wisely. Not just throwing an assload of cash at the star free agents in any given year. Is this why so many Yankee fans are so hardcore set against a cap? Do you all realize that if forced to run their team on equal economic footing with every other team in the league, your glaring weaknesses would be shown for what they are and your many millions of dollars wouldn't be there to bail you out? This has been my opinion now for the better part of the past 15 years. Sad that we'll probably never see it.

PINSTRIPES7
02-18-2009, 11:47 PM
Beantown, you didn't read all of my posts. I'm an advocate of a salary floor which would allow many teams to retain their stars. There are a lot of owner's with more money than the Steinbrenner family that don't put squat back into their teams. The 'good old days' to ballplayers were a time when owners owned you until they traded you or you retired, with little or no chance to get the money that you made for them. And please don't be a Red Sox fan and get on a high horse about overspending just because you don't spend as much as the Yanks.

jmaest
02-19-2009, 12:04 AM
This is a cop out, and one I've seen many times over by Yankee fans. Look past your hate of the Red Sox organization and see that what he's saying is not only fair, it's right for everyone involved. Teams would be competitive based on organizational decisions as it pertains to drafting, stockpiling, and developing talent. Trades. Money spent in free agency wisely. Not just throwing an assload of cash at the star free agents in any given year. Is this why so many Yankee fans are so hardcore set against a cap? Do you all realize that if forced to run their team on equal economic footing with every other team in the league, your glaring weaknesses would be shown for what they are and your many millions of dollars wouldn't be there to bail you out? This has been my opinion now for the better part of the past 15 years. Sad that we'll probably never see it.

A couple of problems with your argument:

1) You assume that revenue will be generated nationally once the implementation of a salary cap is enforced. It's a HUGE assumption since in MLB revenue is generated regionally. Essentially a handful of teams would be floating the bill for the entire league--which is no different than what exists today.
2) The entire structure of TV rights would have to change.
3) The players would have to agree with a cap since it is unconstitutional.

You see the problem with the "Yankee basher" side of the argument is that it lacks depth. A salary cap, in practice, doesn't work. It doesn't make things better. It's an illusion. What a cap does is make owners richer and organizations stronger. The concept of competitive balance is also a fallacy.

The NFL, for example, is successful because the game is designed for television and the rich contract is evenly distributed amongst ownership. But players in the NFL are nothing more than commodities. You no longer have the concept of "heroes" and "records"--which are both at the very core of MLB. The two leagues, and sports in general, are structured completely different. What works in one league does not necessarily work in another.

And, quite frankly, a salary cap only makes the Steinbrenner family that much richer. At the very least it moves them from the near bottom of the owner pool to the very top. I would see very little opposition from the Yankee organization to a cap. As we all know they are both the richest and greatest organization in sports today. That history and legacy goes nowhere, regardless of what happens.

Having said all of that you and most people like you need to read this:

http://www.informativesports.com/Articles/NFL/the_Myth_of_Parity.htm


NFL Free Agency began during the 1989 season, so for this test I looked at all the SuperBowls dating back to 1990. Looking at ’89-’90 through ’08-‘09, the NFL has had:

22 different teams appear in the Super Bowl
13 different Super Bowl champions (2009 not included for obvious reasons.
Pretty good parity, right? The NFL can say that nearly 70% of the league has made it to at least one Super Bowl in the past 20 seasons.

But what about the MLB? Where (supposedly) a few powerhouses won’t play fair and keep the little guys on the outside looking in.

Using the same time frame of 1989 through 2008, and remembering that 1994 did not feature a World Series due to the strike, MLB had:

21 different teams appear in the World Series
13 different World Series champions.
That’s 20 Super Bowls (with one champion yet to be determined) and 19 World Series. Yet the league without parity compares remarkably well to the celebrated bastion of equality. In fact, the numbers are nearly identical. Just as in football, roughly 70% of baseball teams have appeared in a championship matchup since 1989. Four of these teams have won multiple titles during this period. In the NFL, six teams have won multiple times.

#27in2007
02-19-2009, 10:42 AM
if John Henry is going to be throwing around a lot of talk about Salary Caps, then he needs to come with specifics, if people are going to buy into what he is saying.. otherwise, it is just sour grapes, when he says these things after not getting Arod in 2003, and Tex in 2008.... If he really wanted a salary cap, then he would get more specific in terms of limits... baseball would need a salary floor then also... the problem is that teams like the Royals, and Marlins would rather just pocket the easy money they get from the Yankees, instead of putting it back into their team... the current system that baseball has would work better, if there were strings attached to the luxury tax money, and other subsidies that the lesser market teams receive... such as if you received 10 million in revenue sharing, then you need to use that money to put a better product on the field, and not just in the owners pockets...

redhorse
02-19-2009, 11:00 AM
how come they act like there victims of something all the time... they play this underdog card so much its ridiculous....they just want people to like them and feel sorry for them...damn i hate boston so much ....anyways heres hanks response to this

“Along with a few other teams, we’re basically baseball’s stimulus package,” he said. “As long as we’re..giving all this money to other teams in revenue sharing, a staggering amount, we should be able to spend on salaries what we want to. Because of revenue sharing and because of the popularity nationwide, the Yankees are critical to baseball.”

http://riveraveblues.com/
Edit/Delete Message

jtchilln
02-19-2009, 11:21 AM
how come they act like there victims of something all the time... they play this underdog card so much its ridiculous....they just want people to like them and feel sorry for them...damn i hate boston so much ....anyways heres hanks response to this

“Along with a few other teams, we’re basically baseball’s stimulus package,” he said. “As long as we’re..giving all this money to other teams in revenue sharing, a staggering amount, we should be able to spend on salaries what we want to. Because of revenue sharing and because of the popularity nationwide, the Yankees are critical to baseball.”

http://riveraveblues.com/
Edit/Delete Message


In the big picture, how many teams out there really need the revenue they receive from the luxuary tax, maybe a handfull. If their was a Minimum of 50mil and a max of $125mil I think most teams could fill a roster with good quality players and not need the "Yankees Stimulus". If an owner can't afford to pay 50mil in salary then he needs to sell the team and move to a new city. It's pretty obvious KC, and Fl are not big baseball towns and need to relocate.

I love how Hank acts like he is doing so much for MLB for the good of the game. They give back so much, everyone should be kissing his feet and thanking them.

J-Loco
02-19-2009, 11:34 AM
But, some owners don't have the money to get the players that the yankees, and red sox can. If it was just a matter of putting money into a team, then every team would be doing it.

If you can't afford it don't buy a team then you don't have to cry.

J-Loco
02-19-2009, 11:39 AM
another yankee fan crying p.s mlb needs the cap so the yankees cant over spend

Another Red Sox tool bag!

The point he wants a cap to maximize his own profits. Let's think about this. If there is a cap everyone get's the same talent level regardless of market and fan base and the owner's get rich and the players get played. With all the endorsements and TV deals etc these owners need to spread the wealth. If you are a good player and bring a team lots of revenue then you deserve to compensated. If you are a second rate organization that owns a team just for the sake of owning one and you don't care about the product you put out then don't cry if your team blows. It has nothing to do with Yankees/Red Sox and everything to do with capitalism. Get over it or find a new owner.


As far as John Henry goes boo hoo! The rich trying to get richer. If the Red Sox didn't discard players and has some loyalty maybe they too could get the premier free agents and John Henry could stop crying about it.

redhorse
02-19-2009, 11:46 AM
which team had the highest payroll to ever win a world series?? if its the red sox
then why are they complaining? its like what i said before they always want to be a victim and the underdog..... they just want people to root for them because they know how much america loves an underdog...

look as a yankee fan i also dont like the yankees spending spree... i wanted them to back to what they did in the 90's ,but what really gets me p'od is when its the red sox making these statements... i understand if its the kc royals or the rays....

KingerSox
02-19-2009, 11:47 AM
Henry's not stupid, he knows a cap is the best thing. It will allow alot more teams to compete and it will screw teams like the Yankees who have butt **** all in their farm system. A cap wouldn't hinder the Red Sox all that much. Players would need to take less money, I think winning would be more important. And the Sox have a deep farm and we draft extremely well. I think a cap would be interesting.

J-Loco
02-19-2009, 11:51 AM
I love how some fans think about things. So basically you are all saying John Henry is smart for wanting a salary cap? Let's see, if you were to cap civilian pay business owners would make out like bandits and the employees would basically turn into low priced slaves. You cannot take capitalism out of sports. The teams with the leadership and solid business plans are successful and the ones without them are the ones that cry about it. John Henry wants John Henry's pockets to be fatter. He doesn't care about the fans and making sure everyone has a chance to win. Stop being so naive and learn a little bit about business. The other thing is that John Henry is a band wagon jumper the small market owners say they want a cap and John Henry sides with them knowing damn well that there never will be one. So he earns the respect of the small market teams and thus is able to work out trades for better players with that team increasing his payroll and all the while crying about a salary cap. Some people have no clue how this thing works. There is a reason why owners say everything that they say and that is to help their organization and to fill their pockets. Let's put a cap on research for cancer and other diseases while we are at it. Them damn pfizer people make too much money there needs to be a cap so procter and gamble can have some better employees too. That is exactly what everyone agreeing to a salary cap is saying. There is a cap in the NFL and NHL but they don't play 162 games a year and make as much revenue. Just stop crying and get over it.

PapelbonLester
02-19-2009, 12:27 PM
idk why he called for it to be honest. He must LOVE watching the stupid yankees blow billions of dollars to lose

jtchilln
02-19-2009, 12:32 PM
I have to agree with you, their is something about watching the Steinbrenners when the Yanks lose. To be honest it's really funny, the looks on those faces that says, " i just spent $220mil and these guys can't get into the playoffs!"

sep11ie
02-19-2009, 12:41 PM
And the Kettle called the pot black

redhorse
02-19-2009, 12:42 PM
yea but whats more funny is when the patriots lost in the superbowl and the look on there fans faces is priceless... you could youtube it if you want makes me laugh all the time....

Go Sabres
02-19-2009, 12:46 PM
Boston ownership is a joke look what he did for that foreign immigrant piece of garbage he has on his team

Sportfan
02-19-2009, 01:01 PM
Boston ownership is a joke look what he did for that foreign immigrant piece of garbage he has on his team

:pity:

Tragedy
02-19-2009, 01:04 PM
Boston ownership is a joke look what he did for that foreign immigrant piece of garbage he has on his team
If Boston ownership is a "joke", then give a detailed explanation as to why they've had a solid farm system the last couple of seasons as well as 4 trips to the ALCS since 2003.

jtchilln
02-19-2009, 04:25 PM
yea but whats more funny is when the patriots lost in the superbowl and the look on there fans faces is priceless... you could youtube it if you want makes me laugh all the time....



Didn't know this was the NFL chat room??

ebtek1
02-19-2009, 05:12 PM
yea he's been saying this for some time now



he only comes out and says it after the yankees win the battle over a player they both covet... the first time being after he failed to nail down the a-rod trade and now after he couldnt close the deal on tex. sour grapes, thats all. hes just mad bc he was made to look like a fool.. again. but he is a brilliant baseball guy, as is theo epstein.. cant take that away from them.. just two instances in which they lost "their guy" to the yanks, thats all.

GiantYankees
02-19-2009, 05:42 PM
Can we just make a Yankee vs Red Sox forum already so this stuff can go elsewhere, its really irritating

GiantYankees
02-19-2009, 05:44 PM
If Boston ownership is a "joke", then give a detailed explanation as to why they've had a solid farm system the last couple of seasons as well as 4 trips to the ALCS since 2003.

Out of that whole mindnumbing sentence you thought that was the only part highlight-worthy? :p

BeantownBill
02-19-2009, 05:52 PM
A couple of problems with your argument:

1) You assume that revenue will be generated nationally once the implementation of a salary cap is enforced. It's a HUGE assumption since in MLB revenue is generated regionally. Essentially a handful of teams would be floating the bill for the entire league--which is no different than what exists today.
2) The entire structure of TV rights would have to change.
3) The players would have to agree with a cap since it is unconstitutional

And now a problem with yours :

I didn't bring up ANY of these issues. Don't use one of my posts to grandstand. Do that on your own or don't do it at all. READ what I said and feel free to respond to ONLY what I said. Do NOT lump me into an argument I'm not involved in. Thanks.

jmaest
02-20-2009, 10:52 AM
And now a problem with yours :

I didn't bring up ANY of these issues. Don't use one of my posts to grandstand. Do that on your own or don't do it at all. READ what I said and feel free to respond to ONLY what I said. Do NOT lump me into an argument I'm not involved in. Thanks.

I WAS responding to your point. I wasn't lumping you into an argument. I wasn't misquoting and I certainly wasn't "grandstanding". You made a comment, and I responded.

Considering that this is an internet blogging forum I would say that is very much the place to do just that. Don't like it or don't agree? No problem. Feel free not to respond.

jscotty8
02-20-2009, 12:43 PM
I simply consider the source.

A Yankee's fan "considering the source", we are considering the source... you. It's about time a big market owner came out and said.

jmaest
02-20-2009, 01:01 PM
A Yankee's fan "considering the source", we are considering the source... you. It's about time a big market owner came out and said.

Unfortunately it's the second time this "big market owner" came out and asked for a cap. The first time came after they lost ARod to the Yankees.

And, quite frankly, was he considering a cap when he paid $51M for the rights just to speak to Matsuzaka? Did he consider a cap when he offered Teixeira such a huge contract--with incentives that, had he achieved them, paid him more than the Yankee contract?

I am more than inclined to agree with you that a Yankee fan isn't really a credible source when it comes to all things Boston as I'm sure you would agree that Boston's owner isn't really a credible source when it comes to all things salary cap related.

BRADY4MVP
02-20-2009, 01:32 PM
damn, looks like i came to the party a bit too late...would LOVE to know what all of these deleted messages said

BeantownBill
02-20-2009, 01:44 PM
I WAS responding to your point. I wasn't lumping you into an argument. I wasn't misquoting and I certainly wasn't "grandstanding". You made a comment, and I responded.

Considering that this is an internet blogging forum I would say that is very much the place to do just that. Don't like it or don't agree? No problem. Feel free not to respond.

I feel the need to respond, so allow me to do so and when this last point is made I'll stop. You responded to my post by listing a number of things I didn't bring up, much less say myself, and yet you referenced my post as if I had. Please do not do this. That's all I'm asking. You did grandstand, and anyone reading it will see that for what it is. That's fine, you're allowed to do so and I'm in no position to tell you not to. However, don't use my post as a basis for doing so.

I'm sure it would be easier for you to post your ideas without anyone rebutting you or calling you out when you make a mistake. That won't happen here and if you don't like that, feel free to not to respond yourself. That is, if you can show a little restraint and allow that someone might have a point. I gave an opinion, and you expanded on my opinion with things I never said or referenced and then proceeded to take me to task on it. If I say something you don't like feel free to rip what I said in earnest, and I'll defend myself if I feel it's warranted. (Trust me, I know it's not always!)
Thanks in advance for understanding.

I still believe a fixed spending limit for player salaries, per team, is the way to go. Just my opinion.

nik.jd.aitken
02-20-2009, 02:03 PM
This all starts at the top. Quit feeding out big contracts.
IMO we do need a cap but with the way the MLBPA never uses common sense it will never happen.

Common sense?

The MLBPA is looking out for the players. A move that would effectively limit player salaries is NOT in the interest of the players.

Think it out before you type it.

jscotty8
02-20-2009, 02:13 PM
Unfortunately it's the second time this "big market owner" came out and asked for a cap. The first time came after they lost ARod to the Yankees.

And, quite frankly, was he considering a cap when he paid $51M for the rights just to speak to Matsuzaka? Did he consider a cap when he offered Teixeira such a huge contract--with incentives that, had he achieved them, paid him more than the Yankee contract?

I am more than inclined to agree with you that a Yankee fan isn't really a credible source when it comes to all things Boston as I'm sure you would agree that Boston's owner isn't really a credible source when it comes to all things salary cap related.

I agree with you... A Boston fan talking about the Yankees is the samething. This is more than just about teams you hate, it's time for a cap.

Hendo
02-20-2009, 02:35 PM
This isn't really news considering how long he's called for one.yea.. :violin: he started calling for one as soon as he failed to sign ARod. Had he made the signing we wouldn't hear so much as a peep out of his ***

Jilly Bohnson
02-20-2009, 02:44 PM
I think it's funny when owners call for a salary cap, considering all it does is line their pockets with more money.

jscotty8
02-20-2009, 03:12 PM
doesn't matter why he called for it... It's time to make baseball as healthy a sport as football.

Jilly Bohnson
02-20-2009, 03:13 PM
doesn't matter why he called for it... It's time to make baseball as healthy a sport as football.

How isn't it?

Jilly Bohnson
02-20-2009, 03:15 PM
I haven't read the whole topic, but this REALLY needs to be posted

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1345


A few weeks ago, I started what I hoped would be a series on baseball's economic issues. As you can see, it's been a while between articles.

It has taken me three weeks to put together a coherent salary-cap column, because there are so many issues that come into play when trying to write about it. There's a mythology that surrounds the salary cap, one so ingrained in any discussion of the topic that to get through the layers of misconceptions takes the work off on a half-dozen tangents, all of which are informative and entertaining, but which make for a difficult read.

So let's start with the basics about the salary cap, and actually, the term itself. The so-called "salary cap" is actually a payroll cap, or a labor-cost cap. Salaries are not limited on an individual basis, but by team, so the restriction is not on the players, but on the teams.

That's an important distinction. Were the more accurate term "payroll cap" used, the effects and intent of the tool would be more clear: to restrict the amount of money management can spend on labor. It's an agreement among competitors to inhibit the labor market, lowering salaries.

A salary cap transfers wealth from labor to management.

That's all it does, and that's all it's supposed to do. The nominally fan-friendly effects of a salary cap are either fictional, or secondary, weak ones. A salary cap merely keeps teams from bidding on labor past a certain point, regardless of the value of the available labor or the team's resources, with the effect of lowering salaries across the board.

The salary cap is a popular concept among many fans, for as best as I can tell, two reasons, both the result of heavy league and media proselytizing:

* The idea that a salary cap will lower the costs associated with attending games.

* The idea that a salary cap will lead to better competitive balance.

Neither is true. The first case is probably the most important one, because it's the one that the leagues and their respective owners have spent years promoting.

The price of tickets is not set to recoup costs, but to maximize revenue.

If you take nothing else from this column; if you think I'm a blithering idiot unfit to spend time in the company of humans; if you'd rather I be carved up and sold for pennies a pound... believe the above statement. Send it to two friends. It's the single misconception most damaging to the public discourse on sports economics.

Prices are set by teams to maximize revenue, and are based on anticipated demand. They are not set to "make up" whatever rise in payroll is anticipated, no matter how many teams send out letters to season-ticket holders claiming this to be the case. Rising player salaries do not drive ticket-price increases.

There are countless examples that show this, but the two I like best are major college sports--where the players are "paid" with scholarships and stipends, yet ticket prices are comparable to those in their professional counterparts--and the NBA and NFL, where a salary cap hasn't stopped a steady rise in ticket prices over the last 15 years. Baseball ticket prices are high because lots of people are going to baseball games. (I know corporate purchases, and the tax laws that drive them, are part of this equation. It's a topic for another day.)

For a salary cap to impact the price of tickets, you'd need something along the lines of a "revenue cap" to balance the scales. This would be a completely irrational solution, in part because implementation would be difficult, and in part because the market would correct for the lowered prices. There would be a huge secondary market in which tickets are priced according to demand, with the revenues going not to the teams themselves, but to the brokers in that market. There's no reason to implement a system that encourages this.

A salary cap isn't going to put money back in fans' pockets.

The notional impact of a salary cap on competitive balance comes from two places. One is the idea that a team's success is tied to its payroll. It's a wrong-headed one, driven by a number of factors including the Yankees' success over the past seven years with a high payroll, the willingness of some teams at the low end of the revenue and payroll scales to suck up revenue-sharing dollars, and a whole host of convoluted statistics cooked up by the Blue Ribbon Panel of Experts Picked by Bud Selig to Produce a Report That Supported His Ideas With as Little Input From Unfriendlies as Possible.

There is no clear relationship between success and payroll, particularly at the high end of the scale. Spending gobs of money on baseball players doesn't guarantee success, even in the wild-card era, as recent performances by the Orioles, Mets, Dodgers, and Red Sox show. It is possible--if more difficult--to win while having a low payroll. The success of the A's and, at least in 2001, the Twins is evidence that even a vanishingly low payroll isn't an absolute barrier to success.

The interactions among payroll and success and market size and revenue and capitalization are complex. When you look at the big picture, at all the reasons why some teams are successful and some aren't, why some are high-revenue and some aren't, there's just no way to pick one solution--a salary cap--from the ether and say "this will make everything right."

Well, to some people there is: the NFL. The blessed NFL is held up as an example of a wildly successful league with a salary cap. The truth is that the NFL's nominal "competitive balance" is a function of a number of factors, including the shorter season, larger playoffs, fixed scheduling, and the greater impact of a reverse-order draft in a sport where players can make a more significant initial impact.

To the extent that the salary cap contributes to competitive balance, I would say that it works negatively: it punishes success, forcing well-built, winning teams to shed talent on a near-constant basis. It also makes it virtually impossible to trade, increasing the impact of a single catastrophic event in a league where teams cannot make adjustments on the fly. A system that punishes success, rather than rewards it, seems an odd construct for any endeavor, and it's one I have difficulty supporting.

The NFL is successful, and the NFL has a salary cap. Unless you're an owner, though, the case that the latter has been a cause of the former is awfully weak.

I'm really going to need to do an entire column on MLB v. NFL, because surface comparisons of the two don't advance the discussion much. Suffice to say that, "because the NFL has one" is a lousy reason to support a salary cap. The two entities share little more than green fields and space on the national stage.

What would the actual effects of a salary cap be, if one was implemented in major league baseball? Well, because the cap is generally tied to a specific percentage of revenue, the first thing you'd have to do is get MLB owners to be honest about their finances. That alone could take us into the 2020 season.

After I wrote my article on revenue sharing, a number of people made the claim that the money going from high-revenue to low-revenue teams would cause the low-revenue teams to become more active in player acquisition, increasing demand for lower-tier free agents and essentially keeping the amount of money going to the players constant. It's a nice theory, and it's popular among those who want to believe that 1) teams are aching to give players money and 2) the MLBPA actually has something to gain from a payroll restraint.

It's not likely to be the case, though, and in fact, this is why all salary cap plans come with a salary floor. There are plenty of team owners who don't want to spend more on players than they absolutely have to pay them. This would be especially true if revenue sharing increased enough to guarantee a profit for every team in the league.

Remember what we know about the distribution of talent in major league baseball: it's the right end of a bell curve, with a few great players at the extreme, more players with good talent towards the middle, and a near-endless supply of free, or replacement-level, talent. It's taken some time, but teams are beginning to recognize this, as we saw this winter.

Put another way, there is no "middle class" in baseball. You start young and cheap, and you either become older and expensive, or just older. Changing the distribution of revenue in baseball isn't going to change these things. If Jason Giambi makes $12 million per year instead of $17 million, Tino Martinez isn't going to still make $8 million just because the Reds, Devil Rays, and Royals all have some of the Yankees' money. The entire scale slides down; no "middle class" emerges just because the revenue is distributed differently. None should, because the salary scale should match the distribution of talent.

Any "demand effect" of the extra money going to lower-revenue teams is not going to cancel out the impact of what is happening at the top of the salary scale.

There are other reasons to oppose a salary cap, not the least of which is that it will make being a fan tedious. Derek Zumsteg will have more on this later this week, but for an example of life under a cap, check out Bill Simmons's latest ESPN.com column. Baseball fans may complain about money now, but there is simply no way to talk trade in the NBA without retaining all kinds of ridiculous information, as well as the knowledge of cap rules that are, to understate the case, intricate.

The salary cap is the Holy Grail of sports ownership. If you can get one in your league, you lock in ungodly profits while eliminating risk. That is a perfectly good business plan, and it's hard to fault MLB and its member owners for doing everything they can to force one on the players.

Recognize, though, that the only people who gain anything from a salary cap are those member owners. A salary cap doesn't benefit fans, it doesn't benefit the game as a whole, and it doesn't do anything for competitive balance. It reduces the financial incentives to improve and innovate and succeed. Moreover, the pursuit of a salary cap has caused the leadership of MLB to relentlessly trash its product in an attempt to reach the ultimate goal. The anti-marketing of baseball, which has done more actual damage to the game than any economic system ever could, has one goal: get a salary cap.

jmaest
02-20-2009, 11:48 PM
^ Excellent, excellent article. Nice job.

Twinke Masta
02-21-2009, 12:12 AM
talk about irony

gcoll
02-21-2009, 01:30 AM
The whole salary cap issue is nonsense. It's unnecessary.

hotpotato1092
02-21-2009, 01:50 AM
I hate yankee fans

Fear_GAS_OLDier
02-21-2009, 01:54 AM
loser

Fear_GAS_OLDier
02-21-2009, 01:54 AM
oh ya and he's jealous

TNA110990
02-21-2009, 06:45 AM
I agree that MLB needs a salary cap. I'm sick of the mother f'n Yankees signing everyone. This way ALL teams would be able to sign the guys in FA. Th only thing they would need to change, in my opinion, would be the guaranteed contracts. I think a team should be able to release a guy from their team after the player completes, at a minimum o two years of the contract. That's my thought.

#27in2007
02-21-2009, 10:47 AM
the yankees before this year had not made a big splash in the free agency market in years..... before we got CC, AJ and Teix we hadn't gotten squat in the free agency market since Johnny Damon 3 years earlier.... so what is all this crying about??? our payroll is high mostly because we are loaded with bad salaries in order to keep the original yankees on the team.... resigning Arod, Posada, Rivera was more than most teams could handle... but since the last time the yanks landed a big free agent from another team was winter of 2005 when they got Johnny Damon.. in that same time frame, John Henry went out of his way to overpay for Julio Lugo, Edgar Rentaria, jd drew, dice-k.... so i am not really sure what angle he is coming from.... the yanks overpay to keep their own till this year.... even before johnny damon, the previous free agents were Carl Pavano 2004, jaret wright 2004, Giambi 2002, and Mussina 2001, sheffield 2004.... Kevin brown and Randy Johnson were via trade... so its not like we go out and get all the free agents every year...

fishfan79
02-21-2009, 10:59 AM
only way this will happen is if we a different form of sharing in place but with the change and rise of media rights it could work. I also think it would take a lockout as well to get the union to agree to it.

Either way though I would love a minium say 60 million and max at like 150 million makes sense. Claim the lowered rest will be used to lower ticket prices makes sense all around.

bagwell368
02-21-2009, 12:45 PM
I usually write books... but this one is simple:

#1. Are huge budget teams such as the Red Sox and Yanks bad for the sport long term?

A. Yes, unless you think contraction is the long term goal. So as a fan of the game, our "super rich" owner has to be for some sort of capping/sharing plan.

#2. Would pulling the Yanks budget into the same place as the RS a good think for the RS?

A. You betcha.

So why would he be against it from any point of view? The fact that he's trying to keep up with the Joneses does not mean he endorses what is going on. That is price of competition. Regular people make these choices everyday.