Fundamental Salary Cap Question (1 Viewer)

[Smack Tripper]

I'm not well versed on how its handled in other sports, but the Yanks landing Vasquez seems to have spiked a renewed interest in a hard cap. If it happens though:

-do caps account or reflect state income tax or cost of living?

I mean, quite obviously, money in Texas or Florida goes further than money in NY or California, for instance, given the differing income and state taxes. And is cost of living accounted for, given the differences between Chicago and Kansas City for interest?

Should this be part of a plan?

 

[Eephus]

I'm not well versed on how its handled in other sports, but the Yanks landing Vasquez seems to have spiked a renewed interest in a hard cap. If it happens though:-do caps account or reflect state income tax or cost of living?I mean, quite obviously, money in Texas or Florida goes further than money in NY or California, for instance, given the differing income and state taxes. And is cost of living accounted for, given the differences between Chicago and Kansas City for interest?Should this be part of a plan?

It isn't in other sports. I honestly don't expect any significant cap changes in the 2012 CBA. The luxury tax threshold may come down a bit but a hard cap would be a huge change opposed by the MLBPA and big market teams.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Salary caps, where contracts are guarenteed are a bad idea.

 

[TLEF316]

If you put a cap on 25 or 40 man roster salaries, the yankees will just spend all that money on international scouting.

Fixing the draft (a hard salary slot system and including international players in the draft pool) is the first and most important step.

salary minimum is the 2nd most important step. The union will never approve a cap if the royals and pirates can keep spending 20 million a year (or whatever their number is). If the Yankees and Red Sox can only spend 100 million (or whatever the number is) the diference has to come from somewhere.

 

[Wrigley]

Salary caps, where contracts are guarenteed are a bad idea.

Why?

 

[whoknew]

salary minimum is the 2nd most important step. The union will never approve a cap if the royals and pirates can keep spending 20 million a year (or whatever their number is). If the Yankees and Red Sox can only spend 100 million (or whatever the number is) the diference has to come from somewhere.

One problem with a salary floor is it will require rebuilding teams to overpay for ####ty veterans like Jason Kendall.

 

[whoknew]

Fixing the draft (a hard salary slot system and including international players in the draft pool) is the first and most important step.

Why not just abolish the draft altogether? If you keep the draft, why not allow picks to be traded?

 

[TLEF316]

Fixing the draft (a hard salary slot system and including international players in the draft pool) is the first and most important step.

Why not just abolish the draft altogether? If you keep the draft, why not allow picks to be traded?

agreed with the trading of picks. Abolishing the draft in total is a bad idea. I seriously doubt the small market teams are gonna fork out the money needed to sign the best players if they are bidding in an open market. Plus, a lot more kids grow up as fans of the big market teams and would likely choose to sign there if the money is equal. The point of the draft is to get the worst players on the best teams. Do it like the NBA does it. No issues with holdouts and tanking usually doesnt pay off.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Draft revisions would be a big help, and I think maybe a draft cap would be good. You can spend X amount per draft and that can be be frontloaded or backloaded, it would make for interesting strategy on draft day. Go for the Strasberg type who might want 4/5 of your budget or spread it about.

One more contingency that is truly fundamentally unfair with any cap system is the Canadian dollar. Though affecting just the Jays, there should be some consideration given to the translation in revenue from U.S. to Candadian.

 

[David Yudkin]

Draft revisions would be a big help, and I think maybe a draft cap would be good. You can spend X amount per draft and that can be be frontloaded or backloaded, it would make for interesting strategy on draft day. Go for the Strasberg type who might want 4/5 of your budget or spread it about. One more contingency that is truly fundamentally unfair with any cap system is the Canadian dollar. Though affecting just the Jays, there should be some consideration given to the translation in revenue from U.S. to Candadian.

For starters, I believe that the players get paid in American dollars and on the books it's record in USD. Secondly, at this point the Canadian dollar is worth more than a U.S. dollar with an American dollar equal to 95 cents Canadian. Please explain why the Blue Jays would merit special consideration or why they would need to do anything differently.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I'd like to see a cap be the avg of the top 10 spending clubs, and the floor being the avg of the bottom 10.

If there is a cap, I think you'll see teams in the middle and lower end of the top spend more. Right now, what incentive do the Rays, Blue Jays and Orioles have to spend more? Once they start to get close to competing, Bos/NYY just start buying every FA on the market.

Having guarenteed salaries with a cap would be a huge problem. Teams could be crippled by one player getting hurt. Even without a cap, Albert Belle set the O's back for a few seasons single handidly. I would guess they could look at the NFL model to overcome this when it comes to injury. I just don't know enough about it.

 

[Michael Brown]

Salary cap? Non-guaranteed contracts? Are you people looking for a 5-year strike?

Look, I'm fine with a salary cap being instituted because I trust the current Yankee regime to make smart decisions. But the only people who are helped by a cap are fans, and a few mid-market teams. Callous as it may sound, it's pretty obvious that MLB doesn't care about the fans' priority over their dollars. And there aren't enough mid-market teams to make it matter. Right now, the Yankees and other big spenders can fork out millions, all while the bottom feeders can turn profits with $20 million payrolls. The players, meanwhile, have an open and limitless bidding system. Where's the incentive for ANY of them to change it? In the name of wins and losses? Sure that's great in theory, but in reality they all want to get paid.

 

[Chairshot]

I'm like MB, I wouldn't really care too much if they put a cap in baseball, as I trust the Yankees brass to make good decisions.

However, I think many people talk about a cap like its the savior of baseball. It's not.

You have a whole host of issues in baseball that hurt the competitive balance of the sport. I love the game. But it's clear that there are a number of things that really need to be addressed.

People also act like putting a cap into baseball is an easy thing to do. You could very easily put a cap into the game and make things worse then it is now, if it's not done correctly.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Draft revisions would be a big help, and I think maybe a draft cap would be good. You can spend X amount per draft and that can be be frontloaded or backloaded, it would make for interesting strategy on draft day. Go for the Strasberg type who might want 4/5 of your budget or spread it about. One more contingency that is truly fundamentally unfair with any cap system is the Canadian dollar. Though affecting just the Jays, there should be some consideration given to the translation in revenue from U.S. to Candadian.

For starters, I believe that the players get paid in American dollars and on the books it's record in USD. Secondly, at this point the Canadian dollar is worth more than a U.S. dollar with an American dollar equal to 95 cents Canadian. Please explain why the Blue Jays would merit special consideration or why they would need to do anything differently.

Fair points, and I suppose its more of a operating revenue matter for the Jays. But I'd have to think that unless the dollars, u.s. and cannuck, stay in the same range, there could be issues of a nature I admittedly can't forecast. I guess I'm also wondering what sort of dual Canadian/American tax these guys might face?

 

[Chairshot]

I unfortunately don't have links to back it up, but I'm 99% sure that all major sports contracts (MLB, NBA, NHL) are written in American dollars and are then converted to Canadian dollars when the checks are cut. I've read a number of articles about how as the Canadian dollar gains strength, it has the effect of lowering Canadian teams overall salary because they are paying out in converted American dollars.

I'm also almost positive that if you play in Canada, you are only going to pay Canadian taxes. I believe Troy Glaus tried to get the D-backs to cover the extra taxes he would pay when he got traded to the Jays, but I don't believe he was going to have to pay both American and Canadian taxes.

 

[Michael Brown]

Salary cap? Non-guaranteed contracts? Are you people looking for a 5-year strike?

Look, I'm fine with a salary cap being instituted because I trust the current Yankee regime to make smart decisions. But the only people who are helped by a cap are fans, and a few mid-market teams. Callous as it may sound, it's pretty obvious that MLB doesn't care about the fans' priority over their dollars. And there aren't enough mid-market teams to make it matter. Right now, the Yankees and other big spenders can fork out millions, all while the bottom feeders can turn profits with $20 million payrolls. The players, meanwhile, have an open and limitless bidding system. Where's the incentive for ANY of them to change it? In the name of wins and losses? Sure that's great in theory, but in reality they all want to get paid.

Just wanted to follow up on this one...what I'm saying is, I think if there were a cap in place then the Yankees wouldn't make so many boom-or-bust type of moves. They'd probably be a bit more conservative with handing out 6- and 7-year contracts (duh) because of the chance that it would cripple them for years. So rather than going nuts on the free agency market, they'd be a bit wiser. And that would help them because everyone at the top would also have to be a bit wiser, making the top players' salaries that much more affordable...meaning the Yankees being square in the middle of the universe in NYC would be an appeal for a player that not many teams can afford. Marketing opportunities would then drive the free agency truck, and a ton of guys would STILL opt for NY over others with the $ being equal. Now I'll grant that the money won't always be equal, but even if it's close many guys would choose NYC over Baltimore or Minnesota or wherever.

 

[the moops]

Once they start to get close to competing, Bos/NYY just start buying every FA on the market.

It is somewhat ridiculous that Boston and NY get thrown in the same category. NY outspends Boston by as much as Boston outspends the Florida Marlins.Boston is definitely one of the haves, no doubt, but they haven't even been second in payroll since 2004 or so. The Mets and the Cubs are every bit the spenders, they just suck at it apparently.

 

[Michael Brown]

Once they start to get close to competing, Bos/NYY just start buying every FA on the market.

It is somewhat ridiculous that Boston and NY get thrown in the same category. NY outspends Boston by as much as Boston outspends the Florida Marlins.Boston is definitely one of the haves, no doubt, but they haven't even been second in payroll since 2004 or so. The Mets and the Cubs are every bit the spenders, they just suck at it apparently.

It's not really that ridiculous. The Yankees' payroll excesses over Boston are due in large part to the "superstar" quality of their players. What I'm saying is this: when players get onto the open market, there is a bidding system in order to acquire them. The Yankees are able to go several million more for players, so when the "big money" guys hit the market they generally go the Yankees way.They usually can top most offers, financially speaking. And since they're often competing with Boston for the same guy, they do just enough to top the offer. Do that enough times and your payroll is going to look bloated. But Boston can top any offer financially speaking that doesn't involve the Yankees. So just because the Yankees exist doesn't mean the Red Sox don't hold a sizable advantage over the other 28 teams. The perfect illustration of this dynamic is to look at individual salaries. Is Mark Teixeira five times better than Adrian Gonzalez? Of course not. He might not even be better at all. But he hit the open market and Gonzalez did not, so his salary blows A-Gon out of the water. Tex has a superstar factor and became available at the right time, so he got paid. If Boston trades for Gonzalez, his salary is very manageable. Does that mean the Yankees have an advantage over Boston just because their 1B makes $15 million more? No, it means Boston was more efficient in their decision-making. The Yankee advantage over Boston is that they rarely get into a situation where they CAN'T get the guy they want. But Boston is able to settle for the next-best thing at a fraction of the cost that the Yankees paid for the top guy (Ortiz, Schilling, Lowell) and oftentimes have it work out just as well or better. The reason for this is because once the Yankees get THEIR guy, they're not involved in the talks for the next-best thing. Boston is then competing against very few teams for the services of Player B and can make off with him for pennies on the dollar (Lackey).PS - Agreed about the Mets/Cubs part.

 

[Balco]

I think the whole system is majorly screwed up, and there are no quick fixes. But I think everyone is in agreement that the system needs to be fixed.

The 1st issue I would tackle is the draft. I would make it like the NBA, slotted salary for each pick. This would prevent agents bullying teams not to take their players due to salary demands (i.e. JD Drew, Rick Porcello, Mark Prior). Also, international players must be drafted. This prevents a bidding system for these players, where the highest bidder gets the player.

After the mess of a draft is settled, then a cap/floor can be discussed.

 

[Michael Brown]

I think the whole system is majorly screwed up, and there are no quick fixes. But I think everyone is in agreement that the system needs to be fixed.The 1st issue I would tackle is the draft. I would make it like the NBA, slotted salary for each pick. This would prevent agents bullying teams not to take their players due to salary demands (i.e. JD Drew, Rick Porcello, Mark Prior). Also, international players must be drafted. This prevents a bidding system for these players, where the highest bidder gets the player. After the mess of a draft is settled, then a cap/floor can be discussed.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Salary caps, where contracts are guarenteed are a bad idea.

Why?

1. Because once teams start spending to the cap, it will take years for teams to recover from mistakes. And they don't necessarily have to make a mistake, they could just be some bad luck like one of a teams top pitchers needing Tommy John surgery. Arm problems in MLB are pretty commonplace. 2. Teams will start trading contracts instead of players. The NBA is a perfect example. The NHL will soon get there, although, they can bury some of their mistakes in the minors. I remember the Sixers trading for Jamal Mashburn's contract, and he never played a game for them, yet he got paid for 2 years. That's where the NBA is, that's where the NHL is heading and that where MLB will go if they institute a salary cap.

 

[TLEF316]

Totally agree on the whole "trading contracts" theory. Thats not a good thing for a sport.

 

[DropKick]

Once they start to get close to competing, Bos/NYY just start buying every FA on the market.

It is somewhat ridiculous that Boston and NY get thrown in the same category. NY outspends Boston by as much as Boston outspends the Florida Marlins.Boston is definitely one of the haves, no doubt, but they haven't even been second in payroll since 2004 or so. The Mets and the Cubs are every bit the spenders, they just suck at it apparently.

It's not really that ridiculous. The Yankees' payroll excesses over Boston are due in large part to the "superstar" quality of their players. What I'm saying is this: when players get onto the open market, there is a bidding system in order to acquire them. The Yankees are able to go several million more for players, so when the "big money" guys hit the market they generally go the Yankees way.They usually can top most offers, financially speaking. And since they're often competing with Boston for the same guy, they do just enough to top the offer. Do that enough times and your payroll is going to look bloated. But Boston can top any offer financially speaking that doesn't involve the Yankees. So just because the Yankees exist doesn't mean the Red Sox don't hold a sizable advantage over the other 28 teams. The perfect illustration of this dynamic is to look at individual salaries. Is Mark Teixeira five times better than Adrian Gonzalez? Of course not. He might not even be better at all. But he hit the open market and Gonzalez did not, so his salary blows A-Gon out of the water. Tex has a superstar factor and became available at the right time, so he got paid. If Boston trades for Gonzalez, his salary is very manageable. Does that mean the Yankees have an advantage over Boston just because their 1B makes $15 million more? No, it means Boston was more efficient in their decision-making. The Yankee advantage over Boston is that they rarely get into a situation where they CAN'T get the guy they want. But Boston is able to settle for the next-best thing at a fraction of the cost that the Yankees paid for the top guy (Ortiz, Schilling, Lowell) and oftentimes have it work out just as well or better. The reason for this is because once the Yankees get THEIR guy, they're not involved in the talks for the next-best thing. Boston is then competing against very few teams for the services of Player B and can make off with him for pennies on the dollar (Lackey).PS - Agreed about the Mets/Cubs part.

As usual, these has some fair and well thought out points. But do you really think 5 years at 16.5 million is pennies on the dollar? This suggests your valuation is from the Yankee's perspective which is well above the average MLB team.My problem is that there are more than two teams in MLB and the consolidation of talent is ridiculous. Boston didn't need Lackey. NY didn't need Teixeira. NY can always get their man by paying more and for a longer term than anyone else. Too much greed in baseball now. Let's pinch the last dollar. Small market teams have little shot at extended success when they can develop but not always keep their talent. Puts a premium on locking up the right guys, which is dicey and can handcuff a team for years. Again, the big market teams can recover from mistakes and can actually pay other teams to take their players.

 

[Michael Brown]

Once they start to get close to competing, Bos/NYY just start buying every FA on the market.

It is somewhat ridiculous that Boston and NY get thrown in the same category. NY outspends Boston by as much as Boston outspends the Florida Marlins.Boston is definitely one of the haves, no doubt, but they haven't even been second in payroll since 2004 or so. The Mets and the Cubs are every bit the spenders, they just suck at it apparently.

It's not really that ridiculous. The Yankees' payroll excesses over Boston are due in large part to the "superstar" quality of their players. What I'm saying is this: when players get onto the open market, there is a bidding system in order to acquire them. The Yankees are able to go several million more for players, so when the "big money" guys hit the market they generally go the Yankees way.They usually can top most offers, financially speaking. And since they're often competing with Boston for the same guy, they do just enough to top the offer. Do that enough times and your payroll is going to look bloated. But Boston can top any offer financially speaking that doesn't involve the Yankees. So just because the Yankees exist doesn't mean the Red Sox don't hold a sizable advantage over the other 28 teams. The perfect illustration of this dynamic is to look at individual salaries. Is Mark Teixeira five times better than Adrian Gonzalez? Of course not. He might not even be better at all. But he hit the open market and Gonzalez did not, so his salary blows A-Gon out of the water. Tex has a superstar factor and became available at the right time, so he got paid. If Boston trades for Gonzalez, his salary is very manageable. Does that mean the Yankees have an advantage over Boston just because their 1B makes $15 million more? No, it means Boston was more efficient in their decision-making. The Yankee advantage over Boston is that they rarely get into a situation where they CAN'T get the guy they want. But Boston is able to settle for the next-best thing at a fraction of the cost that the Yankees paid for the top guy (Ortiz, Schilling, Lowell) and oftentimes have it work out just as well or better. The reason for this is because once the Yankees get THEIR guy, they're not involved in the talks for the next-best thing. Boston is then competing against very few teams for the services of Player B and can make off with him for pennies on the dollar (Lackey).PS - Agreed about the Mets/Cubs part.

As usual, these has some fair and well thought out points. But do you really think 5 years at 16.5 million is pennies on the dollar? This suggests your valuation is from the Yankee's perspective which is well above the average MLB team.My problem is that there are more than two teams in MLB and the consolidation of talent is ridiculous. Boston didn't need Lackey. NY didn't need Teixeira. NY can always get their man by paying more and for a longer term than anyone else. Too much greed in baseball now. Let's pinch the last dollar. Small market teams have little shot at extended success when they can develop but not always keep their talent. Puts a premium on locking up the right guys, which is dicey and can handcuff a team for years. Again, the big market teams can recover from mistakes and can actually pay other teams to take their players.

You're right, that was stupid wording on my part to call Lackey pennies on the dollar. Basically what I was suggesting is that Boston got Lackey for the same price as the Yanks got Burnett...and Lackey is clearly the better pitcher. But he became available at the right time for Boston, so they got him for much better value than NY did for Burnett.But I agree with everything else you said. There is an inherent advantage for both NY and Boston being able to outspend the rest of MLB and cover up their mistakes...I just take issue with Boston fans who try to lump themselves into some "middle tier" with the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, etc, when their franchise spends through the roof, has the most expensive tickets in MLB, their own network, etc. Some Boston fans would have you believe they unfairly have to keep up with the Joneses, when in reality there are 28 other cities chasing them AND the Yanks in terms of getting guys.

 

[the moops]

.I just take issue with Boston fans who try to lump themselves into some "middle tier" with the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, etc,

It's not middle tier. It is upper tier, no question. But the Sox are, and should be lumped in with a few other teams.It has been 3 years since the Sox clearly outspent everyone but the Yankees. Their payroll has taken a drastic turn downward in 08 and 09. Last year, the Mets and Cubs outspent the Sox. In 2008 the Tigers and the Mets outspent them.The Sox clearly can spend a #### ton of money. But so can the Mets and the Cubs and the Angels and the Dodgers and the Tigers.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Once they start to get close to competing, Bos/NYY just start buying every FA on the market.

It is somewhat ridiculous that Boston and NY get thrown in the same category. NY outspends Boston by as much as Boston outspends the Florida Marlins.Boston is definitely one of the haves, no doubt, but they haven't even been second in payroll since 2004 or so. The Mets and the Cubs are every bit the spenders, they just suck at it apparently.

It's not really that ridiculous. The Yankees' payroll excesses over Boston are due in large part to the "superstar" quality of their players. What I'm saying is this: when players get onto the open market, there is a bidding system in order to acquire them. The Yankees are able to go several million more for players, so when the "big money" guys hit the market they generally go the Yankees way.They usually can top most offers, financially speaking. And since they're often competing with Boston for the same guy, they do just enough to top the offer. Do that enough times and your payroll is going to look bloated. But Boston can top any offer financially speaking that doesn't involve the Yankees. So just because the Yankees exist doesn't mean the Red Sox don't hold a sizable advantage over the other 28 teams. The perfect illustration of this dynamic is to look at individual salaries. Is Mark Teixeira five times better than Adrian Gonzalez? Of course not. He might not even be better at all. But he hit the open market and Gonzalez did not, so his salary blows A-Gon out of the water. Tex has a superstar factor and became available at the right time, so he got paid. If Boston trades for Gonzalez, his salary is very manageable. Does that mean the Yankees have an advantage over Boston just because their 1B makes $15 million more? No, it means Boston was more efficient in their decision-making. The Yankee advantage over Boston is that they rarely get into a situation where they CAN'T get the guy they want. But Boston is able to settle for the next-best thing at a fraction of the cost that the Yankees paid for the top guy (Ortiz, Schilling, Lowell) and oftentimes have it work out just as well or better. The reason for this is because once the Yankees get THEIR guy, they're not involved in the talks for the next-best thing. Boston is then competing against very few teams for the services of Player B and can make off with him for pennies on the dollar (Lackey).

PS - Agreed about the Mets/Cubs part.

As usual, these has some fair and well thought out points. But do you really think 5 years at 16.5 million is pennies on the dollar? This suggests your valuation is from the Yankee's perspective which is well above the average MLB team.My problem is that there are more than two teams in MLB and the consolidation of talent is ridiculous. Boston didn't need Lackey. NY didn't need Teixeira. NY can always get their man by paying more and for a longer term than anyone else.

Too much greed in baseball now. Let's pinch the last dollar. Small market teams have little shot at extended success when they can develop but not always keep their talent. Puts a premium on locking up the right guys, which is dicey and can handcuff a team for years. Again, the big market teams can recover from mistakes and can actually pay other teams to take their players.

You're right, that was stupid wording on my part to call Lackey pennies on the dollar. Basically what I was suggesting is that Boston got Lackey for the same price as the Yanks got Burnett...and Lackey is clearly the better pitcher. But he became available at the right time for Boston, so they got him for much better value than NY did for Burnett.But I agree with everything else you said. There is an inherent advantage for both NY and Boston being able to outspend the rest of MLB and cover up their mistakes...I just take issue with Boston fans who try to lump themselves into some "middle tier" with the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, etc, when their franchise spends through the roof, has the most expensive tickets in MLB, their own network, etc. Some Boston fans would have you believe they unfairly have to keep up with the Joneses, when in reality there are 28 other cities chasing them AND the Yanks in terms of getting guys.

Yankees opening day payroll2009: $201,449,189

2008: $209,081,577

2007: $189,639,045

2006: $194,663,079

2005: $208,306,817

2004: $184,193,950

2003: $152,749,814

2002: $125,928,583

2001: $112,287,143

2000: $107,588,459

Red Sox's opening day payroll

2009: $121,745,999

2008: $133,390,035

2007: $143,026,214

2006: $120,099,824

2005: $123,505,125

2004: $127,298,500

2003: $ 99,946,500

2002: $108,366,060

2001: $110,035,883

2000: $ 81,200,000

Mess opening day payroll

2009: $149,373,987

2008: $137,793,376

2007: $115,231,663

2006: $101,084,963

2005: $101,305,821

2004: $ 96,660,970

2003: $117,476,429

2002: $ 94,633,593

2001: $ 93,674,429

2000: $ 79,800,000

The Sox are on the same tier as the Mets and nowhere near the Yanks.

 

[Wrigley]

Payroll the last 5 years:

Yanks: $1,003,139,707

R Sox: $ 641,767,197

Mets: $ 604,789,810

That's a Billion with a B

 

[Snotbubbles]

The payroll tiers are:

Yankees

------------------

Red Soxs

Mets

------------------

Group of like 5-10 other teams (Phillies, Cubs, Angels, Dodgers, etc.)

 

[Captain Hook]

.I just take issue with Boston fans who try to lump themselves into some "middle tier" with the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, etc,

It's not middle tier. It is upper tier, no question. But the Sox are, and should be lumped in with a few other teams.It has been 3 years since the Sox clearly outspent everyone but the Yankees. Their payroll has taken a drastic turn downward in 08 and 09. Last year, the Mets and Cubs outspent the Sox. In 2008 the Tigers and the Mets outspent them.

The Sox clearly can spend a #### ton of money. But so can the Mets and the Cubs and the Angels and the Dodgers and the Tigers.

You can take the Dodgers off that list.......at least until the divorce is settled and the ownership and financial picture is stabilized and additional funds obtained.(and really while Moreno and Illitch have the wherewithall, they Generally don't run any of their businesses that way - sure there is occassionally a stupid Matthews contract, but in general they want to make money from their teams and are not wild overspenders)

 

[Wrigley]

.I just take issue with Boston fans who try to lump themselves into some "middle tier" with the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, etc,

It's not middle tier. It is upper tier, no question. But the Sox are, and should be lumped in with a few other teams.It has been 3 years since the Sox clearly outspent everyone but the Yankees. Their payroll has taken a drastic turn downward in 08 and 09. Last year, the Mets and Cubs outspent the Sox. In 2008 the Tigers and the Mets outspent them.

The Sox clearly can spend a #### ton of money. But so can the Mets and the Cubs and the Angels and the Dodgers and the Tigers.

You can take the Dodgers off that list.......at least until the divorce is settled and the ownership and financial picture is stabilized and additional funds obtained.(and really while Moreno and Illitch have the wherewithall, they Generally don't run any of their businesses that way - sure there is occassionally a stupid Matthews contract, but in general they want to make money from their teams and are not wild overspenders)

Hook, you guys gearing up for baseball yet?

 

[Captain Hook]

.I just take issue with Boston fans who try to lump themselves into some "middle tier" with the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, etc,

It's not middle tier. It is upper tier, no question. But the Sox are, and should be lumped in with a few other teams.It has been 3 years since the Sox clearly outspent everyone but the Yankees. Their payroll has taken a drastic turn downward in 08 and 09. Last year, the Mets and Cubs outspent the Sox. In 2008 the Tigers and the Mets outspent them.

The Sox clearly can spend a #### ton of money. But so can the Mets and the Cubs and the Angels and the Dodgers and the Tigers.

You can take the Dodgers off that list.......at least until the divorce is settled and the ownership and financial picture is stabilized and additional funds obtained.(and really while Moreno and Illitch have the wherewithall, they Generally don't run any of their businesses that way - sure there is occassionally a stupid Matthews contract, but in general they want to make money from their teams and are not wild overspenders)

Hook, you guys gearing up for baseball yet?

LOTS of stuff already up ........- first cut on projections/cheat sheets

- auction prices from one of my xpert leagues done in November

- always news items

- boards are open, but like most pretty quiet until January.......BUT I will start taking signups soon for the first mock draft (word for the wise)

 

[Michael Brown]

.I just take issue with Boston fans who try to lump themselves into some "middle tier" with the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, etc,

It's not middle tier. It is upper tier, no question. But the Sox are, and should be lumped in with a few other teams.It has been 3 years since the Sox clearly outspent everyone but the Yankees. Their payroll has taken a drastic turn downward in 08 and 09. Last year, the Mets and Cubs outspent the Sox. In 2008 the Tigers and the Mets outspent them.The Sox clearly can spend a #### ton of money. But so can the Mets and the Cubs and the Angels and the Dodgers and the Tigers.

Let's not start in on which teams CAN spend the money, because let's be honest...if Carl Pohlad (when he was alive) or David Glass had wanted to spend $150 million per year on their baseball team, they certainly could have done so. Those guys could probably buy the Steinbrenners a few times. Problem is, people don't think those owners should have to use their outside income (publishing, Blockbuster) on their team's payroll. The theory goes, the Yankees make money and just put those profits back into the team. But in reality, the Yankee franchise does not profit. Steinbrenner profits though.Steinbrenner uses his outside income to pump up the payroll. It just happens to be that his outside income is courtesy of the YES Network, which makes him a killing. In a recent post on here someone mentioned that the outside interest is still Yankees-related, but the reality is that it is still a separate business from that of the New York Yankees. He could easily say, "the Yankee franchise is the Yankee franchise, and the YES network is the YES network, and that's that". But he doesn't. He takes the YES revenue and furthers the payroll to astronomical heights. If other teams had owners that would use their outside income to boost up their MLB teams payroll, those teams would be more on the level with the Yankees. And then they'd become better teams. And the balance of power in MLB would be distributed more evenly. And then despite that, those owners would make less of a profit than they do now...because right now they can sit back and have a $40 million payroll and get bailed out by revenue sharing to turn a huge profit.So it's just easier to sit back and do nothing and make a buck with very minimal effort.And yes I realize I got way off-topic here. My point is, John Henry and 90% of other owners have every bit as much money as the Steinbrenner family even if the Boston Red Sox do not have as much as the New York Yankees. I mean, despite reports to the contrary, even friggin Fred Wilpon MADE $50 million with Bernie Madoff! You're telling me that a guy lucky enough to profit off the biggest scam artist in the history of America isn't loaded beyond belief? People look at team payrolls and automatically assume that it's a ranking of how rich the ownership is. It's not, not by a longshot.